Comparing two yogurts

cozmik

hi

Based on the figures below which of these two yogurts would you suggest as a better option to include in a diet for someone who is trying to maintain a healthy weight.



Glenisk Natural Organic low fat
Nutrition Info per 100g

Energy............. 278kj / 66kcal
Protein............ 5.2g
Carbs.............. 6.8g
of which sugars.... 6.8g
Fat................ 2.0g
of which saturates. 1.3g
Fibre.............. 0.0g
Sodium............. 0.07g

Calcium 184mg B2 0.29mg B12 0.3ug



Yeovalley Organic Fat Free Natural Bio Live
Nutrition Info per 100g

Energy............. 247kj / 58kcal
Protein............ 5.98g
Carbs.............. 8.4g
of which sugars.... 8.4g
Fat................ 0.1g
of which saturates. trace
Fibre.............. 0.0g
Sodium............. 0.1g

Calcium 210mg

There may be very little in the difference but I'm just curious which one you would go for anyway?

cheers!

cozmik

rubadub

They are close, I would probably simply go by which tastes better.

You can see the "no fat" choice has higher sugar. This is typical of marketers and recipie makers. Low in fat so they whack in sugar to make it taste nice, and vice versa low sugar can be high in fat.

In this case it seems normal. It would help if you listed the ingredients though. Those sugars could be coming from fruits.

Also the portion size matters, a normal tub/serving is 150g, 12kcal between the 2! i.e. so little it doesnt matter. Even if you are eating 1kg a day it is only 80kcal difference.

tribulus

It really wouldn't matter as rubadub says, the rest of your food intake is important though.

cozmik

Hi, Thanks for the replies!

rubadub wrote: »

They are close, I would probably simply go by which tastes better.

You can see the "no fat" choice has higher sugar. This is typical of marketers and recipie makers. Low in fat so they whack in sugar to make it taste nice, and vice versa low sugar can be high in fat.

The full ingredients were not listed on the fat free tub of yogurt whereas Glenisk does have them on thiers but I just don't have it to hand right now, but what they do say on the fat free one is that there is no added sugar so I presume the 8.4g of sugar in the fat free option is not too bad then?

Feelgood

Just a word of guidance.

You should be aware of any yogurts that have the chemical 'Aspartame' in them. Its an artificial sweeter by the shelf name NutraSweet. You will find in nearly all 0% fat foods, diet coke etc. Its apparently known that it causes brain tumors..

Big investigation going on in the states at the moment as to its usage...

cozmik

This is what Yeo Valley say on their website

Why do you not state the ingredients in your natural yogurt ?

Under the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 No. 1499, section 18(d), yogurt is classed as a food which need not bear a list of compositional ingredients. Therefore we do not have to list the ingredients of our natural yogurt on the packaging. Ingredients added to the yogurt such as fruit conserve, or starch thickener must be declared on labelling, as "added ingredients"

http://www.yeovalleyorganic.co.uk/yvo-ad-faq.php?faqid=264

If there was Aspartame in the Yeo Valley yogurt would they also have to add labelling to say "added ingredients" ?

Feelgood

cozmik wrote: »

This is what Yeo Valley say on their website

http://www.yeovalleyorganic.co.uk/yvo-ad-faq.php?faqid=264

If there was Aspartame in the Yeo Valley yogurt would they also have to add labelling to say "added ingredients" ?

Put it this way if it's 0% fat chances are thats what they are using as a sweetner......I wouldn't be overly concerned....one yogurt here and there aint
gonna kill you, though there are people who adhere to complete 0% fat diet foods all day everyday so they are eating loads of it. Its a man made chemical and the body can't break it down so its of no nutritional use to you at all. Just one to watch out for.

cozmik

Feelgood wrote: »

Put it this way if it's 0% fat chances are thats what they are using as a sweetner......

Thanks , I was under the impression that Organic food processors are prohibited from using ingredients such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, or artificial flavourings and colourings.

Feelgood

cozmik wrote: »

Thanks , I was under the impression that Organic food processors are prohibited from using ingredients such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, or artificial flavourings and colourings.

I'm really not sure on that to be honest.....though anything with no fat
needs something to taste nice!. Glenisk yogarts seem dead on, taste really
good too.

g'em

Feelgood wrote: »

Its apparently known that it causes brain tumors..

Show me the studies. That kind of scaremongering does nobody any favours so if you're going to make massive statements like that, back it up.

Feelgood

g'em wrote: »

Show me the studies. That kind of scaremongering does nobody any favours so if you're going to make massive statements like that, back it up.

http://www.newstarget.com/011804.html

http://www.newstarget.com/008485.html

http://www.rense.com/general2/braint.htm

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_brain_tumors.htm

You need anymore just let me know.......

g'em

Feelgood wrote: »

http://www.newstarget.com/011804.html

Concerns in 1980? As in 28 years ago? During a time when no-fat diets were considered a good thing? Followed directly by a sentence showing that the FDA approved aspartame the following year...

http://www.newstarget.com/008485.html

Speculation at best. Brain tumours have been on the rise in the US since the 70s. Consumption of aspartame products has also been increasing. Jeez, they *must* be linked right?

http://www.rense.com/general2/braint.htm

letterz on teh interwebz? How much more scientific can you get...

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_brain_tumors.htm

consipracy theories and a study done on rats...

Feelgood wrote:

You need anymore just let me know.......

Yes please. How about a double-blind, placebo-controlled peer reviewed human study published in a recognised scientific journal within the last 20 years that conclusively demonstrates a significant risk between the consumption of aspartame and the prevalence of cancer.

I'm not saying that aspartame is good, bad or indifferent, merely pointing out that if you're going to claim something causes cancer you should really have substantial evidence to back it up.

g'em

cozmik there's really very little in the two yoghurts. Personally I'd tend to opt for Glenisk ones - great brand, little or no processing, very natural ingredient-wise.

rubadub

cozmik wrote: »

The full ingredients were not listed on the fat free tub of yogurt whereas Glenisk does have them on thiers but I just don't have it to hand right now, but what they do say on the fat free one is that there is no added sugar so I presume the 8.4g of sugar in the fat free option is not too bad then?

Many yoghurts come in packs of 6, in these cases it is common to see ingredients listed on the 6pack carton, and not on the tub. They may not have to disclose ingredients, but if they do not I would be suspicious, what have they got to hide?
If it genuinely had no crap in it why not list this, it is a good marketing point.

In saying that it doesnt automatically mean it has got crap in it. And I am not saying ingredients will be on every 6pack carton, just worth noting.

In my mind removing fat completely= extra processing. The fat levels are already low on the other one so I would lean towards that one.

cozmik

Thanks again for your input, rubadub!

They may not have to disclose ingredients, but if they do not I would be suspicious....

So was I , So I gave them a call and I'm just off the phone with customer service at Yeo Valley and the good news is that there is no Aspartame or any other artifical ingredients added to the fat free yogurt,they told me if there was anything added it must be listed.

So the only ingredients in the Yeo Valley natural fat free yogurt are milk and cultures.

cheers

cozmik

Feelgood

g'em wrote: »

Yes please. How about a double-blind, placebo-controlled peer reviewed human study published in a recognised scientific journal within the last 20 years that conclusively demonstrates a significant risk between the consumption of aspartame and the prevalence of cancer.

I'm not saying that aspartame is good, bad or indifferent, merely pointing out that if you're going to claim something causes cancer you should really have substantial evidence to back it up.

Well I'm not a scientist,so I dont do experiments. Nor am I a doctor so I havent been researching cures and causes to cancer....

I'm an everyday consumer so I work with the knowledge I can get, I dont really care if you decide Aspartame is good, bad or indifferent. I highlighted that "Apparently" Aspartame cause brain tumors based on lots of info I've read and heard about. I was merely passing on this information, its upto whoever reads it to decide whether or not they want to believe the information and eat that crap.


Put it this way, there is no scientific evidence that mobile phone masts cause cancer either....would you object to having 5 mobile phone masts planted in the area of your residence???. Would you be comfortable with that?.

Or would you object given the "hearsay" evidence that they cause cancer?.

g'em

Feelgood wrote: »

Put it this way, there is no scientific evidence that mobile phone masts cause cancer either....would you object to having 5 mobile phone masts planted in the area of your residence???. Would you be comfortable with that?.

Or would you object given the "hearsay" evidence that they cause cancer?.

I'd look into it myself, get as much relevant information as possible and then decide if it was worthy of an objection. I don't tend to use unsubstantiated claims to base decisions on. Same principle as the whole aspartame thing tbh. And fwiw, I treat sweeteners much the same as any other aspect of my diet: everything in moderation.

sudzs

Isn't there some evidence that suggests calcium is not as readily absorbed and utilised in a low or no fat product. ??

Feelgood

g'em wrote: »

I'd look into it myself, get as much relevant information as possible and then decide if it was worthy of an objection. I don't tend to use unsubstantiated claims to base decisions on. Same principle as the whole aspartame thing tbh. And fwiw, I treat sweeteners much the same as any other aspect of my diet: everything in moderation.

Well this is exactly what I did with Aspartame, got as much info as possible and decided it was a worthy objection!!. It's not really unsubstantiated, they have been highlighting the issue of its usage big time in the states in the last few years,something which I have followed....

Not trying to have a barney with you, though its just a bit unfair to just jump in all guns blazing at me on this. I mean there isn't sufficient scientific evidence for a lot of stuff though we still believe it. Like say Vit.C being good for colds. Sure even during a press conference last year, the head guy at Philip Morris (Tobacco) made a point that science hasn't even been able to prove that cigarettes cause cancer - which it hasn't. Don't get me wrong I'm not agreeing to this, I'm just trying to make the point that neither you or I are right. We are working off "hearsay" knowledge.

I think we can agree though that there is no smoke without fire, when have you known any man made junk to being of nutritional benefit....which Aspartame is, man made replacement to sugar. It can't be of any use.

Anyway I will leave it at that, don't want you to start getting annoyed at me!

g'em

Ah it was all going so well until...

Feelgood wrote: »

I think we can agree though that there is no smoke without fire, when have you known any man made junk to being of nutritional benefit....which Aspartame is, man made replacement to sugar. It can't be of any use.

I won't agree to that at all. There's often smoke with no apparent fire where media sensationalism is concerned, and the anti-aspartame band-wagon is a prime example of that. I'm not getting annoyed with you at all, and my apologies if you feel I'm coming at you all guns a-blazing, it's just when I see statements like "its apparently known that it causes brain tumors.." I get a bit irked because there's nothing "known" at all, apparently or otherwise and it's a very serious accusation to make.

Here's the way I see it: too much sugar is bad for you and likewise too much aspartame is bad for you. There's no point demonising an additive like aspartame when its use can be beneficial when used correctly in helping people reduce their sugar intake.

rubadub

Feelgood wrote: »

Put it this way, there is no scientific evidence that mobile phone masts cause cancer either....would you object to having 5 mobile phone masts planted in the area of your residence???. Would you be comfortable with that?.

A better analogy is which would you prefer to have, 5 mobile phone masts, or an incinerator pumping out toxic smoke.

people are not eating spoonfuls of it for no good reason. it is an alternative to sugar. some will not do without sweet tasting foods and consider sweeteners a better option healthwise.

Feelgood

g'em wrote: »

Here's the way I see it: too much sugar is bad for you and likewise too much aspartame is bad for you. There's no point demonising an additive like aspartame when its use can be beneficial when used correctly in helping people reduce their sugar intake.

Well this might help to illustrate my point, how do you know too much aspartame is bad for you?, for that matter how do you know that we don't have enough of it in our diets? or even how do you know that Aspartame is actually better than sugar?.

Yes its a replacement for sugar, makes things sweet tasting. I could also tell you that cardboard can be used to replace ryvita....does that mean its better than eating crackers though?

I understand where your coming from about demonising additives, but if you think about 1 additive that you think is really bad for you and think about how you came to the conclusion that its really bad for you. Would your knowledge of that additive not have spawned from the exact same place that
I got my presumptions about Aspartame?.

Apologies this is a bit deep.....but something to wreck your head with for the weekend!.


Just think we are probably the only people on the planet to swing a three day conversation that
originated from talking about yogarts......

rubadub

Feelgood wrote: »

how do you know too much aspartame is bad for you?

Is their any substance where too much is not bad for you? too much water is bad for you. By the very logic of saying "too much" it infers it is bad.

Feelgood wrote: »

Yes its a replacement for sugar, makes things sweet tasting. I could also tell you that cardboard can be used to replace ryvita....does that mean its better than eating crackers though?

If people had serious ryvita overeating problems and were obese and at risk of diabetes from eating ryvita- then yes cardboard might be a good substitute!