UK group criticises low fat diets

Vahevala

What are your views on this?

In a damning report that accuses major public health bodies of colluding with the food industry, Britain's National Obesity Forum and the Public Health Collaboration call for a "major overhaul" of current dietary guidelines.

They say the focus on low fat diets is failing to address the UK's obesity crisis, while snacking between meals is making people fat.

Instead, they call for a return to "whole foods" such as meat, fish and dairy, as well as high fat healthy foods including avocados, arguing that "eating fat does not make you fat".

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0523/790247-health-fat-diet/

gctest50

and this :

the association of low sodium intake with increased risk of cardiovascular events and death is observed in those with or without hypertension

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...467-6/abstract

fun fun fun

Effects

Was told earlier in the year that low fat milk is actually bad for you. Following a bit of research it turns out to be the case.
I guess it takes a while for mainstream to catch up with latest science?

Keane2baMused

Effects wrote: »

Was told earlier in the year that low fat milk is actually bad for you. Following a bit of research it turns out to be the case.
I guess it takes a while for mainstream to catch up with latest science?

Any links for this? Would be interested to see why

vard

Fats are important but most people already consume more than is beneficial or necessary. If obesity is the argument, weight gain is directly attributable to excess calories. If people reduced their calories, or burned more than they consume they would lose wight. Reducing dietary fat is a very easy way of reducing calories while consuming the same quantity of food.

There are certainly arguments to be made for the satiating effects of higher fat foods. So if kept within your TDEE there's nothing to worry about and you can benefit from the addition of healthy fats with the right choices.

Personally regularly consume over 150g of fat per day as I'm particularly fond of nuts and nut butters. As I so a lot of cardio I find it easier to hit my calories with these foods.

If I was to adjust my diet I would probably be better off keeping my fats limited to about 80g per day while maintaining my protein intake and boosting carbohydrates.

Zillah

Effects wrote: »

Was told earlier in the year that low fat milk is actually bad for you. Following a bit of research it turns out to be the case.
I guess it takes a while for mainstream to catch up with latest science?

I seriously doubt this.

Alf Veedersane

gctest50 wrote: »

and this :




fun fun fun

That's not altogether new. And it's no surprise there's an upper and lower limit for what is healthy for a particular mineral.

El_Dangeroso

Low fat diets definitely suit some people and not others.

TBH I think some people get on great with them as long as they are whole-food based.

Ditto vegetarian, paleo, low carb etc. They are all basically healthier than the typical western diet which basically seems to be the worst of all worlds.

Speedwell

My issue is blood sugar. Eating foods low in carbs and high in fat, in reasonable amounts, causes a more even and balanced rise and fall in my blood sugar numbers. Overeating any food, no matter what its composition, causes my insulin response to overload and go too high.

The argument is not between "fat is great, eat all you want" and "carbs are great, eat all you want". It is between "carbs cause problematic blood sugar spikes" and "it is too easy to overeat if you concentrate on calorie-dense foods", both of which are true.

Effects

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Any links for this? Would be interested to see why

Zillah wrote: »

I seriously doubt this.

Here's just a couple of articles about it:


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/09/low-fat-whole-milk-usda-dietary-guidelines

https://chriskresser.com/still-think-low-fat-dairy-is-the-healthy-choice-think-again/

I did a cooking course with Darina Allen earlier this year and she mentioned it on the day. I then did a bit of research into it. Didn't save the links and I didn't have time to go too in depth.

I've switched back to full fat since then. No real difference to my health that I've noticed. Weight has actually gone down lately but that's better diet all round as well as increased exercise.

lee_baby_simms

Low fat diets often fail because they overlook the importance of regulating blood sugar levels and the resulting effect that insulin has on the body - (promotes fat storage and leads to hunger pangs.)

All calories are not created equal.

Zillah

Effects wrote: »

Here's just a couple of articles about it:


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/09/low-fat-whole-milk-usda-dietary-guidelines

https://chriskresser.com/still-think-low-fat-dairy-is-the-healthy-choice-think-again/

I did a cooking course with Darina Allen earlier this year and she mentioned it on the day. I then did a bit of research into it. Didn't save the links and I didn't have time to go too in depth.

I've switched back to full fat since then. No real difference to my health that I've noticed. Weight has actually gone down lately but that's better diet all round as well as increased exercise.

Yes I found and read those articles earlier. They're not saying low-fat milk is bad for you, their point is that there's nothing wrong with full-fat milk. Low-fat milk is still a perfectly fine element in a healthy diet. The only hint of "bad for you" that I can see is where they mention chocolate milk with lots of sugar added - which obviously is not healthy.

Effects

Like I said, it's what I was told. I still haven't read all the science on it. But it seems that while perhaps it isn't essentially bad for you, low fat milk is not as good as full fat milk.

Zillah

They're both fine, this is all about undoing the demonisation of full-fat milk, and dietary fat generally. You should probably do the research before you go around telling everyone "low fat milk is actually bad for you". This is how false beliefs propagate.

Effects

Zillah wrote: »

You should probably do the research before you go around telling everyone "low fat milk is actually bad for you". This is how false beliefs propagate.

Cool story.

j@utis

I don't drink any fresh milk, either low fat or full fat, but what puzzles me is why they both sell for the same price? low fat milk should be cheaper because it has fat removed from it.

caviardreams

j@utis wrote: »

I don't drink any fresh milk, either low fat or full fat, but what puzzles me is why they both sell for the same price? low fat milk should be cheaper because it has fat removed from it.

Which probably involves extra processing/machinery/time etc. to do.

Irish_rat

There is nothing wrong with a high fat diet once it's full over natural foods like the following: Olive Oil, Coconut Oil, Nuts, Seeds, Eggs, Fish, Avocados, Full fat cheddar cheese and yogurt.

I will eat loads of the above and well able to maintain a BMI of under 20.

frag420

The only thing wrong* from my experience of going from full fat milk to low fat is that when you go back to full fat it feels like I am drinking a glass of cream!!

I'm used to the consistency of low fat now and I find it more refreshing to drink!







*its not wrong in the grand sceme of things but I can't drink it anymore!!

j@utis

caviardreams wrote: »

Which probably involves extra processing/machinery/time etc. to do.

I'm too lazy to google full process of milk processing but AFAIK all fat is first separated from the rest of the milk and later the required amount of fat is added back to make up full or low fat milk. so, manufacturing process basically the same for both milks. cows don't produce exactly 2% , 4% etc milk, fat % in raw milk varies all the time.

Blacktie.

j@utis wrote: »

I don't drink any fresh milk, either low fat or full fat, but what puzzles me is why they both sell for the same price? low fat milk should be cheaper because it has fat removed from it.

Do you also believe clothes in smaller sizes should be cheaper?

Alf Veedersane

j@utis wrote: »

I'm too lazy to google full process of milk processing but AFAIK all fat is first separated from the rest of the milk and later the required amount of fat is added back to make up full or low fat milk. so, manufacturing process basically the same for both milks. cows don't produce exactly 2% , 4% etc milk, fat % in raw milk varies all the time.

So then why should one cost less than the other?

Pat_custard

Effects wrote: »

Was told earlier in the year that low fat milk is actually bad for you. Following a bit of research it turns out to be the case.
I guess it takes a while for mainstream to catch up with latest science?

Generally statements like "low fat milk is actually bad for you" can be left too open for interpretation and the user should define more accurately what it is they are actually saying.

For example I wouldn't usually drink low-fat milk/yogurt/cheese etc. This is usually due to the sugar that is added to replace the fat. To keep the food stable companies will usually replace the fat with carbohydrate in the form of refined sugars, it's pretty cheap it's easy and makes their product taste good all the while tricking the user into thinking they're being healthy.

This isn't enough to say ALL low fat products have added sugar, but a simple check at the back of the product on the nutritional info will tell you all you want.

vard

Pat_custard wrote: »

Generally statements like "low fat milk is actually bad for you" can be left too open for interpretation and the user should define more accurately what it is they are actually saying.

For example I wouldn't usually drink low-fat milk/yogurt/cheese etc. This is usually due to the sugar that is added to replace the fat. To keep the food stable companies will usually replace the fat with carbohydrate in the form of refined sugars, it's pretty cheap it's easy and makes their product taste good all the while tricking the user into thinking they're being healthy.

This isn't enough to say ALL low fat products have added sugar, but a simple check at the back of the product on the nutritional info will tell you all you want.

Rather, such statements are categorically false. The topic of nutrition is a breeding ground for hearsay and misinformation.

No low fat milk will have sugar added. Unless you're buying cartons of chocolate milk. Milk and yogurt already contain natural sugars in the form of lactose; natural yogurt and greek yogurt should contain no added sugar, and I have yet to come across a fat free greek yogurt that has any added. Unless of course you're buying flavoured varieties (which often contain worse things than sugar).

Full fat yogurt is great, and certainly more satiating, but if a calorie deficit (IE: weight loss) is the goal, you'd likely be better off with the low fat option.

Alf Veedersane

vard wrote: »

Rather, such statements are categorically false. The topic of nutrition is a breeding ground for hearsay and misinformation

Is it ever.

The other night there was something on in the background discussing news stories and they mentioned this 'news' about low-fat foods and then one of the contributors mentioned 'the other news' telling us people need to eat more salt.

As opposed to a very low-sodium diet can be bad for you.

Pat_custard

vard wrote: »

Rather, such statements are categorically false. The topic of nutrition is a breeding ground for hearsay and misinformation.

No low fat milk will have sugar added. Unless you're buying cartons of chocolate milk. Milk and yogurt already contain natural sugars in the form of lactose; natural yogurt and greek yogurt should contain no added sugar, and I have yet to come across a fat free greek yogurt that has any added. Unless of course you're buying flavoured varieties (which often contain worse things than sugar).

Full fat yogurt is great, and certainly more satiating, but if a calorie deficit (IE: weight loss) is the goal, you'd likely be better off with the low fat option.

I haven't bought low-fat anything in quite some time so maybe companies have changed their products but in the past I used to check the nutritional info on many dairy products and low-fat milk in my memory generally had a higher sugar content. Spar milk is the brand that I'm quite sure about, but like I said it's been quite some time since I had a look for verification.

On the subject of fat-free greek yogurt I have to disagree with you entirely. Firstly most of these products are NOT greek yogurt but rather "greek style" and "greek strained" as a rule of thumb I take these types as the added sugar type. Check the nutritional info on them next time you're in the shop.

To get back to the original question by the OP, I'm delighted by the news. I hope it acts as a catalyst for the British and Irish governments to finally put their hands up and declare that these low-fat diets are actually harmful to peoples health.

The diet was originally designed to tackle cardiovascular disease, a simple google search will tell you cardiovascular mortality is still rising yet people are still being advised to eat low-fat.

Alf Veedersane

Pat_custard wrote: »

On the subject of fat-free greek yogurt I have to disagree with you entirely. Firstly most of these products are NOT greek yogurt but rather "greek style" and "greek strained" as a rule of thumb I take these types as the added sugar type. Check the nutritional info on them next time you're in the shop.

If you compare the Fage (Greek yoghurt) with Liberte (Greek style) or Glenisk (strained greek style), the sugar is much the same.

There are other Greek-style yoghurts with higher sugar though.

Macy0161

Pat_custard wrote: »

I haven't bought low-fat anything in quite some time so maybe companies have changed their products but in the past I used to check the nutritional info on many dairy products and low-fat milk in my memory generally had a higher sugar content. Spar milk is the brand that I'm quite sure about, but like I said it's been quite some time since I had a look for verification.

My experience with "natural" yogurts is there's not much difference between full fat, low fat and no fat in terms of sugar. Often there's not much between the low fat and no fat in terms of calories either tbh.

We only really buy the 500g pots of yogurt, so I assume the "low fat yogurt = loads of added sugar" comes from the more individual sized pots of flavoured yogurts.

Dolbert

^Yeah, natural low-fat yoghurt has comparable sugar levels compared to the full-fat version (obviously not talking about crap like Muller Lights). The former is probably a wiser bet if weight loss is your goal, I know I could put away 500 kcals of full-fat Greek yoghurt very easily.

dr.fuzzenstein

Most problems arise when people eat or drink sugar free soft drinks, low-fat crisps, lactose free milk, lo cal this and fat free that. Add to that GM crops and processed food and soon our diet will be completely devoid of anything natural.
So they get sick from eating plastic food and need to go to the doctor to be prescribed medication, instead of being told to live a correct lifestyle.



Of course now with GM crops, the cycle is complete. The Pharmaceuticals will sell you the crops, the pesticides and the medicine to keep you sick but alive.
When people come for dietary advise, they should be slapped round the head and told "just eat right, dummy!".
I eat mostly organic and try to eat a good mixture of meat, spuds, rice, pasta*, veg and fruit (I pig out as well and love me a good pizza or kebab and a few pints), I drink water with a small bit of juice (drinking gallons of juice is also not good for you), actually, funny thing, carbonated water means you will need less sugar, but soft drink companies put in phosphoric acid in order to allow them to put 10 teaspoons of sugar in to a can of coke
Now that would make anyone sick. A little bit of juice with water is already very sweet for me, but soft drinks I simply cannot stomach anymore.
I am as healthy as a horse and haven't seen a doctor in about 15 years and I only stopped smoking 3 years ago after 20 years of being a very light smoker. I still smoke the odd Hamlet when I'm out, but that is only 2-3 times a year. So not smoking is a no-brainer of course.

*
and eating pasta right means never opening a jar with pre-made sauce. A nice tomato or cream based sauce is very easy to make. No excuses for shop bought rubbish. That goes for most sauces. But I am a sucker for sweet chili sauce.

Alf Veedersane

Not to drag this off topic but people tend to just lump genetically engineered crops into the one big pot of doom and nothing is ever said about the genetic engineering that adds a native gene to a fruit to confer resistance or to add beta carotene to crops so that people in third world countries get vitamin A, which they're deficient in. It's not all propagated by Monsanto.

ThisRegard

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Most problems arise when people eat or drink ...... lactose free milk

Do people actually drink this as a lifestyle choice rather than due to them being lactose intolerant (actually being intolerant, not just that they think they are like a lot of things)?

As for low fat labelled products, I've never bought any by choice but the stuff I've tasted tastes terrible compared to the regular stuff, especially low fat milk. Lactose free milk tastes like the normal stuff though.

dr.fuzzenstein

ThisRegard wrote: »

Do people actually drink this as a lifestyle choice rather than due to them being lactose intolerant (actually being intolerant, not just that they think they are like a lot of things)?

As for low fat labelled products, I've never bought any by choice but the stuff I've tasted tastes terrible compared to the regular stuff, especially low fat milk. Lactose free milk tastes like the normal stuff though.

Herself bought UHT lactose free milk a few times. Father Ted was right, it's sh*te.
As for being intolerant, I'd prefer almond or soya. I do subscribe to the idea that we were not made to drink gallons of milk anyway. I have a tiny bit in my porridge (and I don't have that every day) and in my milk. And I take it easy on cheese as well, also for the reason that it packs a calorific wallop.

ThisRegard

UHT everything is ****e!

You can get fresh lactose free milk which tastes just like the regular full fat stuff, even Supervalu have their own brand version these days.

My son has an intolerance and was on the soya stuff for a long time before switching to the lactose free milk, I personally thought the soya is too sweet but I'm the type of person who'd happily guzzle several glasses of cold milk so probably just not accustomed to it.

He also had the lactose free cheese but stopped eating it as he'd rob our strong cheddar and sisters pizza so we gradually switched him to that.

vard

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Most problems arise when people eat or drink sugar free soft drinks, low-fat crisps, lactose free milk, lo cal this and fat free that. Add to that GM crops and processed food and soon our diet will be completely devoid of anything natural.
So they get sick from eating plastic food and need to go to the doctor to be prescribed medication, instead of being told to live a correct lifestyle.



Of course now with GM crops, the cycle is complete. The Pharmaceuticals will sell you the crops, the pesticides and the medicine to keep you sick but alive.
When people come for dietary advise, they should be slapped round the head and told "just eat right, dummy!".
I eat mostly organic and try to eat a good mixture of meat, spuds, rice, pasta*, veg and fruit (I pig out as well and love me a good pizza or kebab and a few pints), I drink water with a small bit of juice (drinking gallons of juice is also not good for you), actually, funny thing, carbonated water means you will need less sugar, but soft drink companies put in phosphoric acid in order to allow them to put 10 teaspoons of sugar in to a can of coke
Now that would make anyone sick. A little bit of juice with water is already very sweet for me, but soft drinks I simply cannot stomach anymore.
I am as healthy as a horse and haven't seen a doctor in about 15 years and I only stopped smoking 3 years ago after 20 years of being a very light smoker. I still smoke the odd Hamlet when I'm out, but that is only 2-3 times a year. So not smoking is a no-brainer of course.

*
and eating pasta right means never opening a jar with pre-made sauce. A nice tomato or cream based sauce is very easy to make. No excuses for shop bought rubbish. That goes for most sauces. But I am a sucker for sweet chili sauce.

I can understand being against GM for ethical reasons, the copyright controversies and its impact on on independent farmers and producers, but there really isn't any reason to fear it for health reasons.

The only argument that's regurgitated against GM in relation to health is that we have yet to see the "long term" effect. Which essentially is an admission that there's nothing wrong with it and just another level of scaremongering from people who fear anything that doesn't fit their interpretation of "natural".

GM foods will continue to serve us so long as we live in a society that demands perfectly formed produce 365 days a year at cheap prices. Adding to that, Genetically Modified foods can absolutely be used as a force for good; some 3rd world regions have populations that are extremely susceptible to famine as they are reliant on a single food source. With GM seeds, crops can be improved and developed to withstand drought and differing conditions.

El_Dangeroso

vard wrote: »

I can understand being against GM for ethical reasons, the copyright controversies and its impact on on independent farmers and producers, but there really isn't any reason to fear it for health reasons.

I'm neither pro- nor anti- GMO though I am highly sceptical of a private corporation professing to do things for the 'good of humanity'..There are no long term studies on the safety of GMO in humans. Not one. So it's a bit premature to say we can be 100% sure there's no reason to fear either current crops or potential future organisms that might be created.

Don't forget that there were no studies showing leaded petrol caused any harm before there was. Ditto tobacco. These studies are enormously difficult to run and fund.

Do I go out of my way to eat non-GMO? Nope, not even a little, but I really hate the unscientific way that GMO's are defended in the name of 'science'.

The best thing we can say right now is 'No idea' as that's all the evidence we have.

Zillah

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

There are no long term studies on the safety of GMO in humans.

A sentence like this shows that you just don't understand what GMO even is. I could engineer a potato to have cyanide. I could also engineer the potato to have slightly higher Vitamin A. The long term effects of slightly higher Vitamin A is very different to those of cyanide. GMO isn't a single thing, it's a tool. There's no reason the tool itself would have any long term ramifications, all that matters is what that tool is used for. It is not magic, it under control; it's not some wild book of dark sorcery that we've found in a tomb and decided to start reading from.

You may as well announce that there have been no long term studies on the health impact of all food that start with the letter S - technically accurate but entirely irrelevant.

The selective breeding we've been doing for millennia is no less meddlesome and far less well-controlled than GMO.

EDIT: Also, there are plenty of studies https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/22/debunking-claims-of-no-long-term-and-independent-gmo-studies/

dr.fuzzenstein

I don't trust it as far as I can throw it. The companies developing these kinds of crops don't do it to develop drought or pest resistant crops, or to give us better or healthier veg. The develop these things for one reason and one reason only, to make money. And how to make money? By insinuating themselves into the market for seedlings, so in the end the farmer will have to go to his friendly neighbourhood pharma outlet to get his seed.
Plus they need more pesticide, so along with your seed you can buy a nice big batch of pesticide, "conveniently" available from the same manufacturer who made the seeds. Extraordinary coincidence.
And most GM crop are not engineered to be resistant to drought or pests, they are engineered to be resistant to more pesticides and herbicides, so you can dump even more of that sh*t on them:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/#16ad6b89a371

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/

It's all in order to enable large scale farming on an industrial scale with absolutely zero regard for the natural cycles, replenishment of the soil, crop rotation, etc... It's just to force a piece of ground to mass produce crops at the fastest rate possible. It's done for profit and nothing else, solving any kind of 3rd world hunger crisis is just a nice spin put on to maximize profits.

El_Dangeroso

Zillah wrote: »

A sentence like this shows that you just don't understand what GMO even is.

I find it deeply ironic you say this when you didn't actually seem to understand my post at all.

Zillah wrote: »

I could engineer a potato to have cyanide. I could also engineer the potato to have slightly higher Vitamin A. The long term effects of slightly higher Vitamin A is very different to those of cyanide. GMO isn't a single thing, it's a tool. There's no reason the tool itself would have any long term ramifications, all that matters is what that tool is used for. It is not magic, it under control; it's not some wild book of dark sorcery that we've found in a tomb and decided to start reading from.

What are you on about? GMO is not one single thing so I'm saying you can't make a blanket statement saying it is safe. What was your point?

Zillah wrote: »

You may as well announce that there have been no long term studies on the health impact of all food that start with the letter S - technically accurate but entirely irrelevant.

Yes you're right, everything is safe because we can't test everything. What an utterly stupid thing to say.

Zillah wrote: »

The selective breeding we've been doing for millennia is no less meddlesome and far less well-controlled than GMO.

The fact that you equate selective breeding to GMO shows your ignorance on the subject.

Zillah wrote: »

EDIT: Also, there are plenty of studies https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/22/debunking-claims-of-no-long-term-and-independent-gmo-studies/

More proof you just went off half-cocked without reading my post.

Zillah

I just don't have the energy to go back and forth over this topic endlessly. If you have any opinions on GMO I strongly recommend you read this very thorough article on the topic that does a better job of deconstructing the issues than I can: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

It's very long but you're not going to find a better researched article on the topic anywhere, and it addresses a lot of things people have brought up here.

ThisRegard

So.. eh, GMO, low fat or full fat?

El_Dangeroso

Zillah wrote: »

I just don't have the energy to go back and forth over this topic endlessly. If you have any opinions on GMO I strongly recommend you read this very thorough article on the topic that does a better job of deconstructing the issues than I can: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

It's very long but you're not going to find a better researched article on the topic anywhere, and it addresses a lot of things people have brought up here.

Again, you assume I understand less about GMO than you because I have reservations. When the reason I have reservations is because I know more about it than you do.

But you know, thanks for the pop-science article anyone could have googled.

Zillah

Did you read the article though? It's very good.

El_Dangeroso

Zillah wrote: »

Did you read the article though? It's very good.

Did you look for it's rebuttal and read that?

dr.fuzzenstein

Zillah wrote: »

I just don't have the energy to go back and forth over this topic endlessly. If you have any opinions on GMO I strongly recommend you read this very thorough article on the topic that does a better job of deconstructing the issues than I can: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

It's very long but you're not going to find a better researched article on the topic anywhere, and it addresses a lot of things people have brought up here.

Well, I will certainly give it a read. I do have reservations about GMO, but it's better to be informed. Because it would be utterly stupid thing to do to just spout rebuttals without even trying to inform oneself, it could be dangerous even.

ThisRegard wrote: »

So.. eh, GMO, low fat or full fat?

Oh no, lo-fat GMO would be bad for you. Go full-fat.

Alf Veedersane

GMO is OMG backwards.

QED.

j@utis

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So then why should one cost less than the other?

because low fat milk has less fat in it that's why it should cost less than full fat.

Alf Veedersane

j@utis wrote: »

because low fat milk has less fat in it that's why it should cost less than full fat.

The same manufacturing process means the same costs means the same price.

Pat_custard

Anybody looking to have a short read about how the low-fat diet become everyday policy in the world and also a short comprehensive overview of the politics that drove nutrition guidelines into what they are today give this a read;

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin?utm_content=buffer6855f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

It very nicely highlights that Obesity and Type-2 Diabetes, in particular, both sky rocketed in the U.S and U.K around the time the U.S first issued it's low-fat dietary guidelines.

Zillah

j@utis wrote: »

because low fat milk has less fat in it that's why it should cost less than full fat.

But by having less fat it necessarily has more of everything else. Technically low-fat milk has more protein. Shouldn't it cost more?

j@utis

Zillah wrote: »

But by having less fat it necessarily has more of everything else. Technically low-fat milk has more protein. Shouldn't it cost more?

we're both right but I'm more right than you are