Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Alvin, Jan 13, 2018.
Not ice cream!
I know, why not something unpopular that no one would miss
What a great study! A reminder to seek out food as uncontaminated by industrial processing as possible.
And of course real icecream has no need for trehalose - it's just cream, egg yolk, sugar and fruit (or other flavouring).
Industrial processes substitute cheap ingredients which can't reproduce the texture and mouthfeel. Hence the need for additives.
I think it should be illegal to call anything without eggs 'ice cream'. And of course cream. Low fat ice cream should not even be a thing.
Absolutely. Low fat anything is junk, it has to be loaded up with additives to make it palatable.
Low fat yoghurt. Yuck.
Does non low fat yogurt in fact contain significant amounts of fat? i.e. much above the 4% which is normally in the milk it's made from?
I have to wonder why they bothered, unless it's simply an excuse to get more refined sugars into our diets without many people noticing.
According to this link :
Yeo Valley Yoghurt (the full fat version) contains 4.5 grams of fat per 100g of product, which isn't a million miles from what you mentioned, Wonko.
I'm not convinced it makes much difference. Regular (organic) yoghurt has around 4.5% fat, low fat (organic) around 1.8%. One would have to eat a lot for that to matter.
Greek yogurt can be around 10% fat, but also has less sugar and more protein than non-Greek yoghurt.
I suspect 'low fat' is mostly about marketing, especially as the fat is often replaced with various forms of sugar, so it's not about the calories.
....and, doesn't "low" in this nutritional context typically mean, less than 5%
(sorry, somewhat limited ATM and find the whole idea of them creating low fat yoghurt, by removing fat and adding shed loads of refined sugars, allegedly for health reasons, out of an already "low fat" product, bizarre, and highly amusing)
It's used in product marketing to simply mean less fat than the normal version of the product.
Actually it appears that 'low fat' does mean something, in Europe at least,
Personally I'm in favour of natural fats in meat and dairy (in moderation, evidently) - we evolved with them, and even developed new capacities to be able to digest raw milk, after all, so they can't be that bad for us,
It's quite an interesting article, if anyone wants a diversion.
I'm pretty sure that farmers and breeders of farm animals have deliberately increased the leanness and reduced the fat of their animals to fit in with the "low-fat" dogma that has been spread over the last 50 years or so. Animals that humans ate as they were evolving were far fattier than modern animals.
Most "unfarmed" animal meat has a lower fat content than "farmed" meat - at least in the cases of ostrich, bison, erm...struggling to think of another animal here. It's apparently a thing for US farmers to deliberately "bulk" up their cattle for a few weeks before sale/slaughtering, rapid weight gain in the absence of exercise tends to go on as fat.
So I'm not convinced.
I don't know anything about ostrich and bison. I was thinking of cows, sheep and pigs. But I'm happy to be corrected.
This confused me as to your posts intent, based on your reply, to my reply, it appears you were mainly talking about modern farmed animals, and not the animals we ate, a "while" ago.
I've got confused and muddled now. Ignore my posts on the subject.
I love everything full fat, but it's difficult to find at my grocery store. Full fat tastes better.
They don't seem to require any excuse to add more refined sugar. I read that people who are trying to lose weight could use vanilla as a flavoring because it adds sweetness without calories. Yet vanilla yogurt has the same amount of sugar (too much) as lemon.
"Unfarmed" (and grass-fed) animals have mostly omega-3 fatty acids in their fat. Grain-fed animals have more onega-6 fatty acids from the grain.
Separate names with a comma.