Whole milk is junk food?

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
A soda IS fscking complete crap...absolutely NO redeeming benefits, overly push marketed and hyped, and a bad, bad habit to get your children into...what kind of parent WOULD you be?

Next down your line is "I hope my child has the option to smoke a small joint once in a while after school..." Might as well, it actually can be claimed to have some medicinal value and possibly mental creative enhancement, unlike soda, which has no value whatsoever to anyone but Coke and Pepsi stockholders...

Considering parents nowadays let their kids run around giving casual blowjobs I'm not too concerned over my parenting ability.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: zendari
And if I want to drink soda? I'm glad elitist liberals now are telling people what they can and cannot eat and drink.

Isn't it funny? It's kind of how elitist conservatives are telling women they don't have any control over their bodies when it comes to pregnancy.....

That's not true at all. You have the choice to become pregnant or not.

And you have the choice to drink what you want.... they are just preventing the schools supplying it... Sorry, but you can't have it both ways...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock
A soda IS fscking complete crap...absolutely NO redeeming benefits, overly push marketed and hyped, and a bad, bad habit to get your children into...what kind of parent WOULD you be?

Next down your line is "I hope my child has the option to smoke a small joint once in a while after school..." Might as well, it actually can be claimed to have some medicinal value and possibly mental creative enhancement, unlike soda, which has no value whatsoever to anyone but Coke and Pepsi stockholders...

Considering parents nowadays let their kids run around giving casual blowjobs I'm not too concerned over my parenting ability.

As always, you lack a point. As a parent (which I hope you'll never become) you have a choice not to let your kids give casual blowjobs.

If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, kindly piss off.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: zendari
That's not true at all. You have the choice to become pregnant or not.

And you have the choice to drink what you want.... they are just preventing the schools supplying it... Sorry, but you can't have it both ways...

When pharmacists and hospitals choose to not supply birth control and morning after pills the liberals said they were forcing raped women to have their babies.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Considering parents nowadays let their kids run around giving casual blowjobs I'm not too concerned over my parenting ability.

As always, you lack a point. As a parent (which I hope you'll never become) you have a choice not to let your kids give casual blowjobs.

If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, kindly piss off.

And you have the choice to not let your kid drink soda. So why would soda in schools bother you so much?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock
A soda IS fscking complete crap...absolutely NO redeeming benefits, overly push marketed and hyped, and a bad, bad habit to get your children into...what kind of parent WOULD you be?

Next down your line is "I hope my child has the option to smoke a small joint once in a while after school..." Might as well, it actually can be claimed to have some medicinal value and possibly mental creative enhancement, unlike soda, which has no value whatsoever to anyone but Coke and Pepsi stockholders...

Considering parents nowadays let their kids run around giving casual blowjobs I'm not too concerned over my parenting ability.

One of the premier challenges EVERY modern, semi-affluent parent faces is the exposure of our children to media and advertising, which creates hype and social pressure within the peer groups, often for very unnhealthy products. It is that advertising and social pressure that led school districts to ban soda machines, especially where parents couldn't monitor it or counter-act it. My children should have to drink sour milk from a paper carton, just like I did in school...better that than get addicted to soda 🙂

Future Shock

PS - Zenardi - I'm also not worried about your parenting skills, because I know that you probably lack the social skills to procreate...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
Considering parents nowadays let their kids run around giving casual blowjobs I'm not too concerned over my parenting ability.

One of the premier challenges EVERY modern, semi-affluent parent faces is the exposure of our children to media and advertising, which creates hype and social pressure within the peer groups, often for very unnhealthy products. It is that advertising and social pressure that led school districts to ban soda machines, especially where parents couldn't monitor it or counter-act it. My children should have to drink sour milk from a paper carton, just like I did in school...better that than get addicted to soda 🙂

Future Shock

PS - Zenardi - I'm also not worried about your parenting skills, because I know that you probably lack the social skills to procreate...

If you want to have your kids drink sour milk have them drink sour milk. Of course like a typical liberal you want to force your beliefs onto others.

If you are a capable parent you don't have to worry about your kids buying sodas.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Legend
Whole milk does have a lot of saturated fat, but that won't make you fat. Only give you heart problems if you don't do any activity and eat other high saturated fat foods and simple carbs.

However, cheetos are definitely worse for you. No nutritional benefits, and the high processed carb content increases body fat production and hunger.

Actually whole milk is indeed junk. 2% milk is only marginally better b/c regular whole milk is like 3 or 3.5% fat. The human body makes saturated fat. Once you become school-age there's almost no need whatsoever to get saturated fat in the diet.

There's nothing magical about the combination of sat'd fat and simple carbs . . . both are bad as a significant portion of a diet.

The baked Cheetos are far from health food but the calorie density and relatively low sodium content gives it a pass.

I disagree.

Whole milk has much nutritional value, while snack foods have absolutely no nutritional value.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=130

But it does depend on the milk. The above site usually references the best quality of foods that they talk about. Organic milks have more omega3 fats and less saturated fats. So originally, milk was excellent all around until we started locking up cattle in pens, force feeding them grains, and giving them hormones.

Yes saturated fat is high in calorie density, but it lacks the high GI carbs that increase the rate of body fat production and hunger that the snack foods do. This is why many people can lose weight by switching from snack foods that are marketed as low fat, such as pretzels, to nuts which are loaded with fat and calories.

While it's certainly true that some "boutique" milks merit consideration, the majority of milk consumed in America is plain old milk. I even agree to a certain extent that maybe we should reconsider how milk is produced in America, but there's no "good old days" of milk quality. Milk has NEVER been excellent all-around for school-aged kids.

Babies should get breastmilk or formula. Toddlers (over 12mo) transition to a variety of table foods plus formula or whole milk. Larger toddlers transition to all table food plus whole milk which continues until kids start school. By the time kids start school, whole milk should be phased out of the diet particularly if a kid drinks a lot.

Forget the garbage about high fat diets being good. Only humans with exceptional energy or development requirements need saturated fat (very young children and athletes). Studies of the glycemic index effect on bodyfat production are uniformly unexceptional. Virtually all evidence supporting the notion that low glycemic index foods suppress appetite (or the converse) becomes equivocal when you factor in fiber content. Lactose itself has a high GI, it's the presence of fat that lowers the GI of whole milk. Regardless, a typical American kid drinking 500ml a day of whole milk will gain 7lbs a year more than a kid on skim milk.

Forget what you've read in Atkins, South Beach, or whatever . . . people lose weight and keep it off by reducing caloric consumption and increasing physical activity. The best studies of long-term (>1yr) weight loss are unequivocal.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Legend
Whole milk does have a lot of saturated fat, but that won't make you fat. Only give you heart problems if you don't do any activity and eat other high saturated fat foods and simple carbs.

However, cheetos are definitely worse for you. No nutritional benefits, and the high processed carb content increases body fat production and hunger.

Actually whole milk is indeed junk. 2% milk is only marginally better b/c regular whole milk is like 3 or 3.5% fat. The human body makes saturated fat. Once you become school-age there's almost no need whatsoever to get saturated fat in the diet.

There's nothing magical about the combination of sat'd fat and simple carbs . . . both are bad as a significant portion of a diet.

The baked Cheetos are far from health food but the calorie density and relatively low sodium content gives it a pass.

I disagree.

Whole milk has much nutritional value, while snack foods have absolutely no nutritional value.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=130

But it does depend on the milk. The above site usually references the best quality of foods that they talk about. Organic milks have more omega3 fats and less saturated fats. So originally, milk was excellent all around until we started locking up cattle in pens, force feeding them grains, and giving them hormones.

Yes saturated fat is high in calorie density, but it lacks the high GI carbs that increase the rate of body fat production and hunger that the snack foods do. This is why many people can lose weight by switching from snack foods that are marketed as low fat, such as pretzels, to nuts which are loaded with fat and calories.

While it's certainly true that some "boutique" milks merit consideration, the majority of milk consumed in America is plain old milk. I even agree to a certain extent that maybe we should reconsider how milk is produced in America, but there's no "good old days" of milk quality. Milk has NEVER been excellent all-around for school-aged kids.

Babies should get breastmilk or formula. Toddlers (over 12mo) transition to a variety of table foods plus formula or whole milk. Larger toddlers transition to all table food plus whole milk which continues until kids start school. By the time kids start school, whole milk should be phased out of the diet particularly if a kid drinks a lot.

Forget the garbage about high fat diets being good. Only humans with exceptional energy or development requirements need saturated fat (very young children and athletes). Studies of the glycemic index effect on bodyfat production are uniformly unexceptional. Virtually all evidence supporting the notion that low glycemic index foods suppress appetite (or the converse) becomes equivocal when you factor in fiber content. Lactose itself has a high GI, it's the presence of fat that lowers the GI of whole milk. Regardless, a typical American kid drinking 500ml a day of whole milk will gain 7lbs a year more than a kid on skim milk.

Forget what you've read in Atkins, South Beach, or whatever . . . people lose weight and keep it off by reducing caloric consumption and increasing physical activity. The best studies of long-term (>1yr) weight loss are unequivocal.

For an MD I think you are dispensing inaccurate advice - not to mention contrary to the American Academy of Pediatrics and World Health Organization guidelines on breastfeeding.

Babies should only get formula when medically necessary. There's no reason to give a toddler over 12 months formula, either. Or wean until a child is ready to wean.

I think the jury is still out on aturated fat. Tropical oils and many animal fats are quite healthy in moderation, and when of proper "ratio". A "low fat" diet is much more harmful on a child than a diet that contains a proper mixture of fats, proteins, and carbs, especially when from wholesome sources.

I agree, US commercial milk is basically junk. About only good for protein shakes 😀

 

[AznAnarchy99]

as a student in a horrible school system right now.. all they have to do is put physical education into the curriculem and there would be no prob

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Legend
Whole milk does have a lot of saturated fat, but that won't make you fat. Only give you heart problems if you don't do any activity and eat other high saturated fat foods and simple carbs.

However, cheetos are definitely worse for you. No nutritional benefits, and the high processed carb content increases body fat production and hunger.

Actually whole milk is indeed junk. 2% milk is only marginally better b/c regular whole milk is like 3 or 3.5% fat. The human body makes saturated fat. Once you become school-age there's almost no need whatsoever to get saturated fat in the diet.

There's nothing magical about the combination of sat'd fat and simple carbs . . . both are bad as a significant portion of a diet.

The baked Cheetos are far from health food but the calorie density and relatively low sodium content gives it a pass.

I disagree.

Whole milk has much nutritional value, while snack foods have absolutely no nutritional value.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=130

But it does depend on the milk. The above site usually references the best quality of foods that they talk about. Organic milks have more omega3 fats and less saturated fats. So originally, milk was excellent all around until we started locking up cattle in pens, force feeding them grains, and giving them hormones.

Yes saturated fat is high in calorie density, but it lacks the high GI carbs that increase the rate of body fat production and hunger that the snack foods do. This is why many people can lose weight by switching from snack foods that are marketed as low fat, such as pretzels, to nuts which are loaded with fat and calories.

While it's certainly true that some "boutique" milks merit consideration, the majority of milk consumed in America is plain old milk. I even agree to a certain extent that maybe we should reconsider how milk is produced in America, but there's no "good old days" of milk quality. Milk has NEVER been excellent all-around for school-aged kids.

Babies should get breastmilk or formula. Toddlers (over 12mo) transition to a variety of table foods plus formula or whole milk. Larger toddlers transition to all table food plus whole milk which continues until kids start school. By the time kids start school, whole milk should be phased out of the diet particularly if a kid drinks a lot.

Forget the garbage about high fat diets being good. Only humans with exceptional energy or development requirements need saturated fat (very young children and athletes). Studies of the glycemic index effect on bodyfat production are uniformly unexceptional. Virtually all evidence supporting the notion that low glycemic index foods suppress appetite (or the converse) becomes equivocal when you factor in fiber content. Lactose itself has a high GI, it's the presence of fat that lowers the GI of whole milk. Regardless, a typical American kid drinking 500ml a day of whole milk will gain 7lbs a year more than a kid on skim milk.

Forget what you've read in Atkins, South Beach, or whatever . . . people lose weight and keep it off by reducing caloric consumption and increasing physical activity. The best studies of long-term (>1yr) weight loss are unequivocal.

You seem to be missing my point about the milk, or perhaps I gave the impression that it was good all around (organic is, but not typical milk). I agree that whole milk is not a healthy food for school children to have. But to put it equal to junk white flour snack foods with a high GI and absolutely zero nutritional value doesn't make sense at all. I gave you a link showing normal milk's health benefits, and it's very detailed with references. 2%, so less fat yes. But fat is not what's making people fat (unless they just stuff themselves), and that's relevant because we're talking about obesity among school children.

You mentioned that children will gain 7lbs a year by switching from skim to whole. The fallacy here is that you assume the children will be just as hungry after having that cup of whole milk as they would with skim. However, I think Skim or 1% is a better choice. I like using vanilla whey protein and skim milk after workouts.

Never did I say anything promoting a high fat diet. All I did was mention that fat does not make you fat, and that nuts are a good alternative to pretzels for weight loss. Nuts are high in omega 3 and omega 6 fats, and are extremely good for you as long as you don't force feed them. I think there should be balance in diet regarding fat, but the truth is the American diet is severely deficient in omega 3 fats, so they need the walnuts/flaxseeds/fish for optimal nutrition, while cutting out the trans fats.

I haven't read much about the trendly diets. I do know a bit about the Atkins diet, and I believe it is flawed because it basically says to elminate all carbs from your diet and replace them with fats/proteins without considering the types. Americans should reduce carb intake some, replace the carbs with whole grains, fruits, and veg, and then change the fats to omega3 and omega6 in a 1:1 ratio. Plenty of good proteins too.


I don't completely agree with you about losing weight. Yes less calories in than out, but applying that rule to the American diet is a painfully inefficient and short term.

To lose weight permanently, you must consider your diet first. A diet rich in meat, nuts, fish, whole grains, vegetables, and fruits naturally improve your health and allow your body to accurately tell when it's truly hungry. You can eat like this your entire life and not have to watch calorie intake nearly as much. Side affects may include an improvement of health in every respect...not just body fat.

Merely calorie counting with the same old junk that Americans eat everyday will make you fatter in the long run, unless you plan on calorie counting your entire life. This is because by calorie counting on a typical American diet (high processed carbs, low crappy fats, medium crappy proteins) limited to the proper amount of calories you need a day will depreciate muscle mass and hormone levels. Your body needs protein to support muscles. Your body needs healthy fats to produce hormones. Add that to the typical American strategy of losing weight: walking/running, and you'll lose weight, but both muscle and fat.

Then the diet is over, and the person goes back to their crappy diet with a calorie surplus. But somethings different. There's less muscle...there's a lower metabolism. The result is more body fat.

Virtually all evidence supporting the notion that low glycemic index foods suppress appetite (or the converse) becomes equivocal when you factor in fiber content.

Explain this...are you saying that you can eat anything as long as it has high fiber content because it'll lower GI? That low GI is meaningless if you add fiber, in whatever form? If that's the case, I don't think I buy that. I'll take natural fiber from fruits, vegetables, and whole grains rather than unnatural supplements and fortifications. There are far greater nutrients that we don't list on a multivitamin (ex, resveratrol) that don't make it in the fortification.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Glycemic index is almost useless since we rarely eat single foods. Most meals are mixed which means the consumption of anything that slows digestion/absorption (fiber, fat) will alter GI. For instance, expensive ice cream is usually sweetened with sucrose (cane sugar). Obviously, sugar has a very high GI but HagenDaaz has a relatively low GI. The reason is the high fat content.

1) bagel (high GI - simple carbs) + chili (low GI due to high fiber beans and fat content from beef)
2) same bagel + cream cheese = mod-low GI but not nearly as healthy or filling as equal number of calories of bagel + chili

Apples have a low-mod GI but dried apples have a mod-high GI. The difference merely being the presence/absence of water.

In general, the processing of foods tends to lower fiber and micronutrient content. But even relatively simple acts (cooking) are complicated. Al dente pasta of every variety has a lower GI than cooking it through. Mashed potatoes are terrible but cold potatoes actually have a decent GI.

Contrary to popular belief, baby carrots (despite their sweet taste and relatively high GI for a veggie) are actually great to eat. The actual glycemic LOAD of raw baby carrots is quite low b/c it's very hard to eat enough of them to get your blood sugar to move.

Obviously, it is profoundly beneficial to eat natural fiber in lightly processed foods rather than "supplements" but ultimately your gut doesn't care if it's 15g of bran or 15g of Metamucil in your stomach and duodenum. Either way it will significantly affect digestion and absorption.

 

[Strk]

I saw this and thought it was relevant to those saying there shouldn't be standards