fat in skim milk
Jase Kat
skim milk is supposed to be low in fat right?
then how come using the 9*grams of fat/calories..
i get about 30% fat?
did i mess up my calculations somewhere?
(the skim milk im refering to is quite good quality)
Kerstin U
milk has 0 grams of fat per serving... even if you assume a trace and
round it up to = one gram of fat, a single serving of skim milk is 90
calories, so:
1x9=9\90 = 10% at the very max!
Skim milk on has a small trace of fat... if someone's trying to sell you
30% fat milk as skim, they're lying about it being skim.
Kerstin U
FL/Illustrator
Kerstin U...@aol.com
Ken Mintz
> I can't see how your getting 30% using the fat gram calculation when skim
> milk has 0 grams of fat per serving
Right on! But while we're on the subject, could someone explain once again
how "1%" and "2%" milk get their names. They certainly have more than x%
fat by calories, as I recall the label.
-- Ken Mintz (I know: RTFFAQ somewhere)
Kerstin U
way advertisers try to fool you! Some deli meats do this too. Always
look at the fat grams & calories if you want to know the real fat %.
Remember, never trust 'em! Until recent laws, a producer of a Mayonaise
for instance could splash "Light" accross their labels, even if it only
was referring to a lighter color!
Let the Buyer Beware!
The Nephilim
Well, milk is mostly water, which is calorie-free. Imagine what you get
left if you removed the water. Not very much - a couple of spoonfuls
of milk solids (ie powdered milk) The 30% fat measure would be 30 percent
of this dry residue, not the total volume including the water.
--
je...@teubner.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily."
Dana Crom
>Kerstin U (kers...@aol.com) wrote:
>> I can't see how your getting 30% using the fat gram calculation when skim
>> milk has 0 grams of fat per serving
>
> Right on! But while we're on the subject, could someone explain once again
> how "1%" and "2%" milk get their names. They certainly have more than x%
> fat by calories, as I recall the label.
"% of total volume", I believe. Normal, full-fat milk runs 3-5% fat, I
believe, so 1% or 2% are called "low fat" milk. Feh. Even 1%-by-volume
runs close to 40% of total _Calories_ from fat. Even with the allowable
"less than 1 gram/serving is rounded to 0" labling requirements, skim should
run <10% Calories from fat.
--
-----------------------+------------------------+------------------------------
Dana Crom DoD #0679 | Silicon Graphics, Inc. | Smile - let them *WONDER*
da...@morc.mfg.sgi.com | (415) 390-1449 | what you've been up to . . .
Michelle Dick
>> I can't see how your getting 30% using the fat gram calculation when skim
>> milk has 0 grams of fat per serving
>
> Right on! But while we're on the subject, could someone explain once again
> how "1%" and "2%" milk get their names. They certainly have more than x%
> fat by calories, as I recall the label.
That's percent fat by weight. Whole milk has 4% of its weight in fat
(it's mostly water). 2% has half as much fat and 1% has 1/4 the fat.
You might find the alt.food.fat-free FAQ helpful:
--
Michelle Dick, art...@rahul.net, Owner: FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List
Alt.food.fat-free FAQ at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ar/artemis/afff.faq
Coolguy Jason
You were most likely looking at 2% which is about 32% (of calories)
fat. 1% is is around 20%.
BTW recent studies show that a seving of whole milk has the same amount
of fat as 4 strips of bacon.
-Jason <><
si...@grove.ufl.edu
Robin sherwin
First of all, where are you getting your info from? Skim milk is not just low in fat, it should have NO fat.
<or at least for all intensive purposes, <1 gm from fat> Skim milk has 90 calories per serving, if it has .5g
of fat <or 5 calories if we round up> it comes out to 5 or 6 % CFF. perhaps you are reading a 1/2% or 1%
bottle or something.
Robin
|=|===>---Wildnurse
Pete Peterson
The 1% or 2% refers to the fact that the milk is approximately 1% or 2% fat
by weight, so that 100 grams of milk has about 1 or 2 grams of fat
respectively. This would mean that a cup of "1%" milk would have about 2.4
grams of fat; a cup of "2%" milk would be about 4.8 grams of fat, giving
about 22 kcal or 44 kcal respectively from fat.
pete peterson
r...@genrad.com
(508)287-7478; Home: (508)256-5829 (Chelmsford, MA)
Tom Jones
Kerstin U <kers...@aol.com> wrote:
>Because their rating it from % of fat per weight not calories. Another
>way advertisers try to fool you! Some deli meats do this too. Always
>look at the fat grams & calories if you want to know the real fat %.
>Remember, never trust 'em!
I don't think they're trying to fool you--it is customary to list
the percentages of *everything* by weight, not calories. If a product
is 10% water, that means that one-tenth of the weight is from water.
When you calculate the amount of fat in a PERSON ("Joe is 22%
bodyfat"), you do it by weight, not in the portion of calories that
would come from fat if you ATE him.
If you want to figure out the percent fat of calories, you divide the
number of fat calories by the total number of calories; no big deal.
Only a fool would think that something that was 1% fat had one percent
of its calories from fat! The only person who is "fooled" is a fool.
-tom
Lonnie Santella
says...
>>way advertisers try to fool you! Some deli meats do this too. Always
>>look at the fat grams & calories if you want to know the real fat %.
>>Remember, never trust 'em!
>
>the percentages of *everything* by weight, not calories. If a product
>is 10% water, that means that one-tenth of the weight is from water.
>
>When you calculate the amount of fat in a PERSON ("Joe is 22%
>bodyfat"), you do it by weight, not in the portion of calories that
>would come from fat if you ATE him.
>
>If you want to figure out the percent fat of calories, you divide the
>number of fat calories by the total number of calories; no big deal.
>Only a fool would think that something that was 1% fat had one percent
>of its calories from fat! The only person who is "fooled" is a fool.
>
>-tom
It was my understanding that there would be no math... :)
-Just a joke
Lonzo
Kerstin U
headache...
:)
"Dammit Jim, I'm and artist, not a mathmatition!!" (sp?)
Forsmi
on the label. I can still contain nearly one gram of fat. Food producers
are allowed to list fat grams as zero if they are less than one, so in
essence you could have point nine grams of fat per serving...when you
might think you were getting zero fat.
Michelle Dick
In the US, it's less than 0.5 grams, not 1 gram that allows
manufacturers to claim "0" grams.
For more information on US labelling laws and fat in foods see:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ar/artemis/afff.faq
--
READ!! No Contest by Alfie Kohn. The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J.
Gould. Sex, Art, and Amercian Culture by Camille Paglia. Sex Work by
Delacoste and Alexander. Tyranny of Kindness by Theresa Funiciello.
THINK, AGREE, DISAGREE, LEARN ---> "finger art...@rahul.net |more"
Kerstin U
per calories, or even that there are more calories per gram of fat that
proteins or carbs. You assume every one "Knows" that, but I don't believe
that's the case. I spoke to someone once who assumed that the "daily %"
ment that the package of bacon she held had 17% fat per serving. If you
don't think advertisers sometimes try to sell their products using
questionable tactics, you eiether live in a advertising utopia or work for
advertising :) Until the FDA came down on them and set rules, some
advertisers were doing something like claiming their product was "Light"
when light may have only ment a lighter color or taste, not lighter fat or
calories. If it was as clear cut as you say, then the person who STARTED
this thread would not have been confused about why their milk was coming
up a different % of fat than what it said on the front.
>If it says 97% FAT FREE, you can be confident it has 3% fat.
Again it can be 97% fat free by weight, or by calories, if someone is
trying to choose fat content from calories this info could be misleading.
>The 45% fat calories of total
calories is a function of the fat having more calories per ounce than
water or protein. What's fooling anybody about that?
again, obviously you assume that everyone knows this... and not everyone
does. Im not saying that labeling the % by weight should not be allowed
tom, and frankly I don't understand why you find my comments so
infuriating... I'm saying that advertisers can try to imply or on the
surface allow you to assume something by using % by weight and other
things like "No cholestorol" when something is full of saturated fat, to
fool you into thinking their product is healthier than it is in the hopes
that you will buy it. If you disagree with me, that's your opinion, but
if that wasn't the case, then I guess I would wonder why the FDA has come
down on food companies, and had to set the new guidlines for labeling.
Steven G. Myerson
* The other thing you have to be careful of is the "0" grams of fat you see
* on the label. I can still contain nearly one gram of fat. Food producers
* are allowed to list fat grams as zero if they are less than one, so in
* essence you could have point nine grams of fat per serving...when you
* might think you were getting zero fat.
I believe that they are allowed to list zero
if the fat content is .5 gm or less.
Steve Myerson (s...@ssd.ray.com)
Eric Christian
Sorry, but I have to say this. Tom Jones is a dickhead!
Eric
EMIL RICK
I think there is some confusion here. Federal law allows a product with
one half gram of fat per serving to advertise itself as fat free. Skim
milk does have 1/2 gram of fat per cup (8oz) with 90 calories. If
you're taking in 9 grams of fat, you're drinking 16 cups of skim milk as
a serving. The bottom line? Not only watch calories and grams of fat,
pay attention to serving size.