The title should be self-explanatory.
I'm trying to get my GF to buy whole milk for the house. Brought up on the normal "Skim Milk is healthy, whole milk isn't" mantra, she's convinced skim milk is the best. Although I've introduced other paleo elements to her that have improved her life (she's now eating very little bread - and feels great!), I'm having difficulty convincing her of this.
Is there a good URL or web page arguing for this? Or anyone here can make one? :)
I'd let someone else do it:
As others have noted, your simple point is the crux of the "fat is bad" debate. Reading the book "Nourishing Traditions" should give you some "talking points".
You can Google on the phrase "low fat debacle" to get more info.
Another thing to point out is that skim milk is a waste product in dairy production. Products that require cream are produced by extracting the cream from the milk and the leftover is "skimmed" or "skim" milk. This watery residue is not really fit for consumption nor nutritious. In order to sell it (i.e. get rid of it and make money at the same time), they process this by adding back cream and fortifying it with enough vitamins to be worthwhile.
There is a book by Theodor Koller titled "The utilization of waste products" which describes how skim milk is produced and sold. The title alone should have some impact on avid skim milk drinkers.
Incidentally, soy milk is in the same category -- it is the waste product from producting tofu and other soybean related products. They used to throw it away, but then figured out a way to process it so that it looked kind of like milk, and now they sell it.
The best way to fatten up your livestock is to give them large quantities of low-quality feed...
The argument isn't limited to whole vs skim milk. Once she understands the falsity of 'low-fat' approaches to nutrition, it will fall into place that whole milk is better than skim. So you might want to start by helping her learn about why fat ISN'T the enemy... i.e. Taubes, Harris, etc.
Milk comes out of the cow with fat in it - that's the way it is naturally. As a person who is lactose-intolerant, I can definitely say that no, it's not better for you unless you think blasting your colon is healthy.
A cup of whole milk has less sugar in it because there is more fat in it. If you drink a cup of skim milk, you're drinking more diarrhea-inducing lactose per cup without the benefits of the fat in whole milk.
I love how everyone has good contributions like that saturated fats are good and that whole fat dairy is more nutritious. Good thread so far. I will add that dairy fat is the best sorce of trans-palmitoleic acid which has insulin-sensitizing properties. It's seriously good for you, so that's one big reason to eat the damn fat (ETDF).
In multivariate analyses, whole-fat dairy consumption was most strongly associated with higher trans-palmitoleate levels. Higher trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with slightly lower adiposity and, independently, with higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (1.9% across quintiles; P = 0.040), lower triglyceride levels (−19.0%; P < 0.001), a lower total cholesterol–HDL cholesterol ratio (−4.7%; P < 0.001), lower C-reactive protein levels (−13.8%; P = 0.05), and lower insulin resistance (−16.7%, P < 0.001). Trans-palmitoleate was also associated with a substantially lower incidence of diabetes, with multivariate hazard ratios of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.64) and 0.38 (CI, 0.24 to 0.62) in quintiles 4 and 5 versus quintile 1 (P for trend < 0.001). Findings were independent of estimated dairy consumption or other fatty acid dairy biomarkers. Protective associations with metabolic risk factors were confirmed in the validation cohort.
I'm not entirely sure of the mechanism but that is one powerful statistic on circulating levels. Dairy fat is associated with higher levels, higher levels are strongly associated with better metabolic health. Good enough for me.
I don't know how great your friend will find my argument, but it worked for some members of my family. Generally, non-paleos seem to recognize that sugar is bad for you. So, I just explain that skim has more sugar and that seems to do the trick! Not to mention the taste of whole milk is SO much better!
My only question is this. Prior to my paleo adventure, we switched our kids from whole to 1% milk. Both of them leaned out, and there is a 4 year age difference between them. This was the only change we did to their diets and it took about 2 months. No diarrheal issues to credit the fat loss, no major growth spurts. They still drink 1% today when they do have milk, so I am hesitant about swapping back up to the unleaded stuff.
If there was no skim milk then there would be no cream.
I'm just saying that cream is a result of making skim milk, litterally skimming the fat of the top of the milk. It is rather a waste if no one uses all the leftover skim milk.
there were recent studies that showed likelihood that all milk except for full fat milk aggravated prostate cancer in men.
"In an overall analysis of food groups, the consumption of dairy products and milk were not associated with prostate cancer risk, the authors found. Further analysis, however, suggested that low-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased this risk."
Of course she's a she not a he, but if she buys it "for the house" then maybe others drink it and of course it may affect other cancers this way. I'm also with Matthew when he says if there were no skim milk, there'd be no cream and it seems a waste for no one to use it, but maybe drinking it isn't the best use.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/food/is-skim-milk-making-you-fat-2479492/ I like this article: skim milk is produced by oxidizing the cholesterol in it. In animal studies oxidized cholesterol causes heart disease and is carcinogenic. Also weight loss was better with full-fat dairy low-fat dairy was associated with overweight, obese children.
Full-fat dairy has the large, fluffy LDL (pattern A) which is NOT implicated in heart disease (Gary Taubes - Why We Get Fat, Good Calories/Bad Calories and Fathead movie). Pattern B is the small, dense LDL associated with heart disease.You can only have Pattern A or B NOT both is my understanding.
Pattern A: low triglycerides, low VLDL, large fluffy LDL, high HDL - all heart healthy/protective
Pattern B: high triglycerides, high VLDL, small dense LDL, low HDL - all heart disease producing
A lot of labs/doctors don't distinguish between large fluffy vs. small dense types of LDL which is why I look at triglycerides and HDL - a much better indicator. Also you will either fit into Pattern A or B so I think you can figure out which LDL (small-dense dangerous ones vs. large fluffy benign) you are producing by levels of HDL and triglycerides.
There's more on insulin, glucagon, VLDL and the like in this article. A bit technical, but still a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_lipoprotein