> Many years ago a nutritionist recommended a low cholesterol milk to me that
> was nice tasting, i.e. full cream. So I changed to it.. However more
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> stronger bones years ago? It had about 50% more sugar. Maybe to make the
> milk taste better because calcium/chalk has a yuk taste?
Don't make the mistake of comparing carbs in different kinds of milk
by percentsages, because they're relative to everyhing else in the
milk. For example, if you just remove some of the fat there's going to
be more carbs in percentage simply because you took the fat away. THe
amount of carbs hasn't actually change, unless you top up your glass
of milk to make up for the amount of missing fat. That has misled some
people into thinking that some low-fat milks have more carbs than the
full-fat versions. And some vendors make a lower carb milk by adding
more water. You could save money by adding your own water!
Don't just compare numbers blindly, think of the physical meaning of
the numbers. And compare quantities, not percentages, if quantity is
what you're concer4ned with.

Signature
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Larry - 13 Dec 2006 15:22 GMT
Chris: My quart of low fat milk says... " amount/serving. (serving
size=1 cup). Total Fat 5g 8% Daily Value based on 2,000 calorie diet.
Total Carb. 14g %DV 5%". This seems to be pretty quantitative to me.
Larry
> > Many years ago a nutritionist recommended a low cholesterol milk to me that
> > was nice tasting, i.e. full cream. So I changed to it.. However more
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Nev. - 19 Dec 2006 19:28 GMT
> You could save money by adding your own water!
I do add my own water, not to reduce cost, but to reduce quantity of
the carbs I consume.
> Don't just compare numbers blindly, think of the physical meaning of
> the numbers. And compare quantities, not percentages, if quantity is
> what you're concer4ned with.
But that is just the point, and why I think the labelling of ingredients and
contents is just a farce!!! Maybe a deliberate obfuscation even!!!
Here is the listing of ingredients on the milk carton:
(In g/100ml, which I take to be a good enough approximation of quantity.)
Protein 3g
Fat - Total < 1g
Fat - Sat < 1g
Carbs 4.4g
Sugars 4.4g
Therefore total ingredients listed out of 100g = > 9.4g
This reminds me of Jim Hacker in the episode about the humble British
sausage,
or of a beef pie maker who does not want to tell how much beef is in his
pie,
or the TV documentary, pommy I think, about counterfeit drugs which told of
a factory that made pharmecuticals that were legitimate and safe as well as
those
that were fake. It was just that fake ones did not have enough of the drug
in
them to be effective.
Nev.
----
Priscilla H. Ballou - 19 Dec 2006 19:32 GMT
> > You could save money by adding your own water!
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Therefore total ingredients listed out of 100g = > 9.4g
Actually, it's 3g + <1g + 4.4g, which makes it < 8.4g not > 9.4g. The
Sat/Unsat is a breakdown of the fat, as is the Sugars of the Carbs.
The rest is water.
You just have to learn how to read it.
Priscilla