Above: Chocolate milk
Above: Skim (fat free) milk
Below: 1% milk
Milk has been there my whole life. I loved the stuff and drank it everyday. But like many folks in my family as I have gotten older it’s gotten harder for me to digest milk products. This project has revealed to me that I’m lactose-intolerant. Just to make my life easier I’m cutting out straight milk and ice cream (dairy products with the most lactose). Lact*aid products although great just seem like too much fooling around for me with my busy schedule. I can’t imagine removing dairy completely from my life since I love yogurt (and luckily it is low in lactose).
Milk is a staple of school lunches. Kids really do love it (I know my toddler does). I think the debate about milk that I’ve seen online is that students should only be served skim milk because it is low in fat and that it does not contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) like chocolate milk. I am concerned about HFCS and how it influences children’s behavior, but I don’t have a lot of information about it. I also think it’s possible that students who don’t get good fats (vegetable oils) in their diet could benefit from milk fat instead of trans fat.
Just came across your blog/project thanks to an article on GOOD. I haven't looked around much yet, but from what I have seen, you are doing a great job of illustrating a huge problem. I wanted to leave this link, I think you'll find it interesting and certainly appropriate. http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver.html
Good fats are not vegetable oils. Good fats are animal fats, coconut oil and butter.
Check out "Oiling of America" DVD by Sally Fallon: http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/OOA/index.php PowerPoint slides also available for free at that website.
Our kids today are so starved for fat and cholesterol.
Mrs. Q–
Most would disagree strongly with the three fats identified by "Anonymous" (10:07 PM) as good fats. Remember, anyone can post anything here; you have to do your own research on nutrition to see what mainstream science says. When you look at the reputable science and nutrition, as defined by the institutions they are connected with, you will see that those scientists say that nut oils, olive oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, and flaxseed oils are the best health-wise. Of course you'll find hundreds of webpages saying the opposite; as with anything else, you'll have to separate the truth from the scammers, and see who is behind the pages that seem to say the opposite of what most reputable scientists believe. For instance, you have to figure out why these lone voices are trying so hard to sell their non-standard ideas, and why their people are never associated with reputable universities or major hospitals and health centers.
Children should NEVER be given low-fat versions of food. The vegan agitators can ruin their own kids' diets and leave everyone else's alone.
And Jackie sounds like a NUTJOB! (Since when does Low Fat always equal Bad?) And since when are vegans the problem? Crazy GOPer.
I have to say, from my own personal understanding, 'good' fats are unsaturated fats and 'bad' fats are saturated fats, then there's the whole omega 3/fatty acids brigade. Personally though, I take all the recommendations with a pinch of salt – I found out a few months back that my low fat diet was harming me and I had to literally up my fat intake. Like I say about calories, we have to understand that not all fat is bad! Your body needs a certain amount of fat to function, just like it needs salt and other minerals.
Also, maybe this is because I'm British, but I swear we don't have HFCS in /anything/. Here's the ingredients list for a chocolate milk drink here in the UK:
"Chocolate Milk:
Skimmed Milk (68%), Whole Milk (22%), Sugar, Fat Reduced Cocoa Powder, Buttermilk Powder,Modified Maize Starch, Stabilisers (Carrageenan, Guar Gum)"
HFCS is bad. Industrialized vegetable oils are bad. Both products figure prominently in our food supply because of government subsidies (corn) and savvy marketing (oils), not because of good science.
Given the inferior nutrition of today's school lunches it is a shame that the best part, whole milk, has been reduced to skim or chocolate milk.
Some kids at my school have NEVER had anything but chocolate milk. I find that really insane because in my life and my son's (19) years, there has never been chocolate milk in our house. Now I find out it has HFCS – honestly never knew that.
I don't know if you'd heard about this, but a significant portion of African American kids are lactose intolerant. It's true of Asians to a lesser extent as well.
Sadly any kids who fall into these groups on a free or reduced lunch program may learn to avoid milk they are given because it gives them a stomach ache.
Here's one location that cites a statistic about lactose intolerance in ethnic groups:
http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/nutrition/lactose_intolerance.html
queenscook: Please explain, if high fat is unhealthy, how did we become human beings by eating fatty meat over a period of millions of years? Does it honestly make sense to you that the very food that nourished us would be interpreted by us as poison?
Why are our brains, and so much of the rest of our body, made up of so much fat?
Why have millions of dollars of studies shown no correlation between high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, but HAVE found strong correlations between LOW cholesterol and HIGH mortality rates?
Why do the Masai, who eat blood, meat and milk almost exclusively, have so little incidence of heart problems?
And perhaps you can explain why:
– if you don't eat protein, you DIE
– if you don't eat fat, you die
– if you don't eat carbohydrate?
I'll give you a hint…you don't die!
I must preface my comment by saying that I am in my final semester of a graduate Nutrition and Food Science program. I spent the bulk of the past 3 years reviewing the lastest nutrition research.
The strongest evidence that exists is for a balanced diet that contains 30% of total daily calories from fat, with less than 10% of calories coming from saturated. Mono and Poly-unsaturated fats have been conclusively shown to be most be most beneficial to the cardiovascular system. However, there is some very compelling research emerging on the health benefits of Coconut oil and other medium-chain fatty acids. This is something to look out for. It is also important to note that ALL fats contain both saturated and unsaturated fats in varying proportions.
My thoughts on the reg milk vs choc. milk debate is that the answer lies in the nutrition info. The choc. milk contains 25g of sugar and 250mg of sodium per serving. That is WAY too much for a 6oz beverage. I'd rather see a child get the vitamins and protein from the reg milk that contains much less sugar and sodium.
Finally, CARBS are an essential part of the diet. Our bodies make energy from carbs (glucose) most of our cells prefer this type of energy and use it most efficiently.
balance, balance, balance is KEY
I haven't read all of the comments, because they look a little angry and I'm not up for that today.
But I just wanted to say, if it hasn't been said yet, that Saturated fats are vital to growing children. They help with brain development. So in some ways, people trying to cut out fat it children's diets is kind of the wrong way to think. They should be cutting out calories if they're trying to keep them from getting fat.
After all, most candy is fat free but loaded with calories.
your chocolate milk is healthier than the shamrock minis at my school – they approach 200 calories for a few swigs. from what i understand, our cafe has no restriction on calories for a meal, just that it can't have more than 8 grams of fat. there is a salad bar available every other day for students and daily for teachers, which is nice – although mostly when students get it, they have a tiny bit of salad, mounds of chopped ham, smothered in ranch dressing and cheese…. oy.
your chocolate milk is healthier than the shamrock minis at my school – they approach 200 calories for a few swigs. from what i understand, our cafe has no restriction on calories for a meal, just that it can't have more than 8 grams of fat. there is a salad bar available every other day for students and daily for teachers, which is nice – although mostly when students get it, they have a tiny bit of salad, mounds of chopped ham, smothered in ranch dressing and cheese…. oy.
Just saw this post on another very good nutrition blog I follow. It is extremely relevant to this debate. Check it out:
http://theziedguide.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/helping-kids-milk-their-diet/#comment-47
Lisa: "CARBS are an essential part of the diet."
If that were true, we would die if we didn't eat carbohydrate. Since we don't die if we don't eat carbohydrate, this proves carbs are not essential.
"Our bodies make energy from carbs (glucose) most of our cells prefer this type of energy and use it most efficiently."
The human body prefers to run on fat, and does so much more efficiently (look up, for instance, the ketogenic diet recommended by the Charlie Foundation). The small amount of glucose required by the brain and other organs does not need to be ingested, as the liver can simply convert protein to glucose by the process of gluconeogenesis.
The conventional wisdom you appear to have been taught in your nutrition courses is being more thoroughly discredited every day. You owe it to yourself and to your future clients to critically examine these issues, both in the small details and the big picture. Gary Taubes' GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES is a good start. The following blogs are also of very high quality and scientific rigor:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/
Another reason it is important to not give kids skim milk is that the fat in the milk helps their bodies absorb the vitamins.
I would be pro-chocolate milk for kids if there wasn't HFCS. I bet more kids drink milk when chocolate is an option. I know that was true for me when I was in school.
Did anyone else get their milk in plastic pouches?
Please keep up the good work you're doing here!
I may not know a lot about nutrition but I've been very much enjoying your blog.
Showed it around work and everyone poked their heads in to check out your recounts of the lunches – very interesting.
I must say though, maybe just different in Australia but I've never seen a school lunch like the ones you've pictured (although they still were horribly unhealthy)!!
A lot of the time, I think you're just BRAVE to be putting a lot of what those lunches look like into your mouth!
🙂 Hope your blog helps to change peoples opinions on how important it is what their developing child eats.
I'd have to agree with some above. Kids need the fats – brain tissue and cell membranes are made of… cholesterol. And the best dietary source of cholesterol is from animal fats. You are right about the HFCS. If you google "Robert Lustig", there's a great (but long) youtube video called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". Chronic (over) use of fructose shares 8 of 12 sorts of damaging qualities as chronic overuse of alcohol.
Carbs are not an essential part of the diet. Our bodies can fairly easily make glucose out of protein and fats. Starches don't really have much nutrition – that's why things like bread and cereal are fortified. Liver and lentils are better sources of B vitamins than most grains.
I'm amazed at the people saying carbs are not an essential part of the diet. Carbs are fantastic for us…take a look at the world's populations and compare then to what we eat in the U.S… Asian countries, for one, have great deal of slender people who have no trouble controlling their weight. They don't eat the vast quantities of meat, dairy, sugar, and fat that we do.
What DO they eat? Rice, lots of rice, veggies, and then meat as a condiment. What about those Indians in the U.S. that are plagued with diabetes? They go back to eating corn, squash, beans…a traditional diet, and the weight falls off and their health returns.
Carbs that aren't processed are wonderful for our health…full of fiber and nutrients and with a lower calorie density that helps maintain proper weight levels.
Hi Friends (that's what we should be at least!),
I think one of the biggest problems with HFCS is that it makes bad food cheaper…and more accessible. It is not that it is necessarily worse for you than sugar. And it is also added to foods that sugar isn't normally added to.
Today in class we used milk and vinegar to precipitate casein. It was great–and it's cool to see the kids start to learn what "in" their food.
Aside from Michael Pollan's books 'The Omnivores Dilemma' and 'In Defense of Food', I have found 'The China Study' by Campbell to be an informative read. There is a significant amount of opposition to this book, but it is a good read none-the-less. The book discusses the links between western diseases and diet among other things.
However, I think as a western society, we should follow Michael Pollan's advice of 'Eat food, mostly plants, not too much', with the caveat of having a proper definition of 'Food'… if your great grandmother wouldn't recognize it as food, it probably isn't. Thinking back to the PB and J graham cracker sandwich…. not food. That picture still grosses me out.
Well, for my own diet and that of my grandson, I avoid chocolate milk because of the HFCS. I think most of us can agree that THAT is not an essential food.
The most consistent comment I hear from my European friends is how sweet everything is in the US, and how big the portions are. Cutting out the added sugars and watching how much you eat goes a long way toward eating well.
Thanks for a great blog!
I will not waste my valuable time to respond to the nonsense that commenters like "frogfarm" post, because these are, IMHO, people that have skewed understanding of standard nutrition. What I will say, though, is that I never said or implied that it was necessary to avoid fat or protein. I think that his/her last comment is the most revealing; anyone that thinks the body can survive long-term without carbs is clearly off the spectrum, and this will likely be my final response to comments like this. I will add that if comments like these become the majority of the comments, I will probably stop reading the blog. It's been an interesting experiment to read about, but I see that it has given a platform to these non-standard nutrition theories, and it saddens me to think that those who are less informed, will now read about the possibility that their diet of heavy meat, butter, cheese, etc. is not harming them. People hear what they want, and this will speak directly to those who want confirmation that their poor diets are really not bad at all.
I am in the whole milk camp. As close to the real thing as you can get is generally better. My kids all drink whole milk (I don't care for milk in general). I just don't let them drink a gallon at a time or anything.
Is there any alternatives offered at your school? Or is it milk only?
Step off the Vegans, they're not ALL crazy.
COW milk is for baby COWS, after all.
In response to Anonymous in the UK: the reason that foods in the UK don't contain so much HFCS is because corn is not such a major (and cheap) crop in the UK: I believe most sugar there is beet sugar (I'm sure there are good farming reasons why this is the case) which sounds like it ought to be healthier but almost certainly isn't. HFCS has gotten bad press in the US because it's so ubiquitous, but I believe regular sugar is just as bad for you.
Mrs Q – I'm really impressed by what you're doing. Thank you!
On the fat vs. carbohydrate debate, I think it really depends on the individual person. I know people who swear by a low-carbohydrate diet and feel great on it, but I tend to have low blood sugar and after one day trying a low-carbohydrate diet, well, I may not die without carbs, but I was convinced I might WANT to die from how bad I felt. On the other hand, I don't do well on excessive sugar either. It gives me a terrible headache. I seem to do best with carbohydrates that are low on the glycemic index so they absorb nice and slowly.
I think we can all agree that HFCS and trans fats are bad. It seems to me like the safe route is to eat less processed, more natural foods, and eat a variety of foods so that everything evens out in the end.
When I was a kid I always got the 2% milk. Our options were chocolate milk, 2% plain milk, orange juice, or apple juice. I'm surprised you don't have a non-milk beverage option for kids who may be allergic or lactose intolerant or just plain don't like milk.
I also tend to think that it might not be as big of a deal for kids to be consuming more calories because of how much kids run around and all (I was always a skinny kid and didn't have to worry about calories at all until my mid-20's when my metabolism slowed), but then I remember that maybe kids these days don't run around much. When I think of kids I think of them having a lot of energy and never keeping still, but perhaps times have changed.
When I was a kid we always had recess after lunch, and I've heard that many schools are doing away with recess because it gets them hyped up, or takes time away from teaching them to take standardized tests or whatever. We also had PE twice a week, and when I went home, my routine was to have an after-school snack, get my homework done, and then I could go outside and play with my friends until it was time for dinner. We'd ride our bikes around the neighborhood, climb trees, etc. Do kids still do that anymore?
I think maybe the problem with childhood obesity is a lot more complicated than carbs vs. fat.
So many hormones and antibiotics in the US milk supply, unfortunately….
I'm a high school senior and have been reading your blog to get a taste of the differences in school food, because I know the food at my high school is quite awful. The things you have posted, however, make me see that I have it good.
I'd like to comment that at least your school offers skim milk. My school offers chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, and 2% normal milk. When I asked why they did not offer skim milk, I was told, "The chocolate is fat free." Sure enough, it is. However, it also has twice the calories of normal milk and an exhorbatant amount of added sodium.
So, I don't drink milk at school.
Hi,
first of all, I just received the link to this blog from my principal. She is pro-healthy food at school.
Second, I want to react on the carbs discussion. From a chemestry point of view, carbs are essential because it provides us with glucose. Our brain mainly works on glucose. At the moment you cut outcarbs, your body will start making glucose from other resources. Initially it will come from other parts of the diet but that is not enough. The brain will take the glucose that was suppose to be used for muscles, and organs. This resource is eventually mainly produced by your liver. So, your liver will get depleted, hence a rapid weight lost. hey isn't that what we want?! We want to loose weight, right?! Well, it's nice to loose weight but not despite taking care of our organs. (smoking made stills for many the feeling of being hungry, yet it damages multiple organs!) In other words, you won't die immediatly if you don't eat carbs, but you'll damage your body. People who cut out carbs for a long time have other health issues. The key is, indeed, to monitor the amount of carbs and balance!
Lastly, I didn't have lunch at school on 2/12 because we had PD day. I will post in the reactions what our menu looks like. We are a Chicago public school, on the southwest side of the city and we have a high number of free/ reduced lunches. However, my principal is clear on the healthy food policy. I'll keep you updated!
Frogfarm and others: I wasn't certain I was going to respond to you because your tone was a lil aggressive and somewhat disrespectful. Perhaps you are cranky from the lack of carbohydrates in your diet. They've been show to have mood elevating abilities 😉 Anyway, I love a good debate, so take it easy and lets dance.
One overarching principle I have learned from my nutrition studies is that scientifically all kinds of theories and strategies can be proven. Be it – validated research, an individual case, or manipulated data. (That is how the chemical weight loss industry thrives.) This reason serves to make nutrition such a tricky subject. However, I believe it is also necessary to look past science and into history. As wilde_hare pointed out, food in most cultures is based on carbohydrates. You can't discredit that type of established human behavior. Nor can you discount the nutritional value of whole grains. To me it is just against nature to completely remove a macronutrient from my diet whether its CARBS or FAT, proteins, as well. Foods exist on this planet for a reason. If you want to call that thought process "conventional",ok.
I love this blog, people! So many excellent issues being discussed off one post! Fantastic! I'm riveted!
Many things that are "natural" exist for reasons which have nothing to do with whether they are healthful for humans to consume. All I was trying to convey was that carbohydrate in any form is strictly optional. I'm sorry you find that "aggressive", but I'm not surprised.
In the end, everyone owes it to themselves to choose their own values and priorities. Some people refuse to give up what's killing them even as they lie in their hospital beds. Others have no problem minimizing or even eliminating something without obvious symptoms, simply because of what they know about its risks. Every carbohydrate, no matter how "natural", carries risks, from the obvious like fructose and phytates to more subtle ones like fiber, lectins, solanines… plant poisons and rotten stuff! Plants can't run away or defend themselves with "tooth and claw", so they do it with toxins. That's why I only eat things that are defenseless when dead!
When you look at the reputable science and nutrition, as defined by the institutions they are connected with, you will see that those scientists say that nut oils, olive oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, and flaxseed oils are the best health-wise.
Why don't you post some valid studies from your reputable institutions and scientists and let's have a look up close and personal.
Of course you'll find hundreds of webpages saying the opposite; as with anything else, you'll have to separate the truth from the scammers, and see who is behind the pages that seem to say the opposite of what most reputable scientists believe.
Truth is never determined by counting noses. There are many things we accept scientifically today that when first expounded they and their defenders were considered nut cases and out there.
Also, maybe this is because I'm British, but I swear we don't have HFCS in /anything/.
That is because your government is not subsiding the corn crop as in America.
Does High Fructose Corn Syrup Have To Be In Everything
I must preface my comment by saying that I am in my final semester of a graduate Nutrition and Food Science program. I spent the bulk of the past 3 years reviewing the lastest nutrition research.
There are several young near Ph.D's or Ph.D's whose review and study of the current research as led them to believe it is largely a bunch of crock. You might check out their websites when you get a chance.
Chris Masterjohn
Stephan Guyenet
Darya Pino
anyone that thinks the body can survive long-term without carbs is clearly off the spectrum
Not really. Check out Is The All Meat Diet Healthy Or Dangerous?
On the other hand it is not necessary to eat that way. The body may be able to survive without carbs, but for many people, including paleo folks, it is not an optimal way to eat long term.
Slaying The Low Carb Dragon
Also, "carbohydrate is optional" may be a *controversial* statement. But it honestly shouldn't be, given basic biochemistry and endocrinology. It's only when it comes to the voodoo "science" of nutrition that all that goes out the window and people blithely ignore reality while parroting the mantra of "hearthealthywholegrains" and "avoid arterycloggingsaturatedfat"!
A lot of the time, I think you're just BRAVE to be putting a lot of what those lunches look like into your mouth!
So true. The editor of this blog is quite courageous. 🙂
However, I believe it is also necessary to look past science and into history. As wilde_hare pointed out, food in most cultures is based on carbohydrates. You can't discredit that type of established human behavior. Nor can you discount the nutritional value of whole grains. To me it is just against nature to completely remove a macronutrient from my diet whether its CARBS or FAT, proteins, as well.
I agree with you that removing or demonizing a macro-nutrient per se is not necessary. But if you are going to look at history and culture you will find a few things that contradict modern nutritional research:
1. Saturated fat is much more abundant in the diet than what you mentioned in your original post. In fact it is the premier fat in terms of volume.
2. Healthy groups exist all over the macro-nutrient spectrum, from the high carb low fat Kitavans (who nevertheless eat more saturated fat than westerners without any heart disease) to the low carb high fat Inuit and many folks in between like the Masai (equally balanced but no vegetation).
3. The industrial vegetable oils (canola, etc.) that make up so much of the modern diet are utterly lacking from traditional dietary paths.
There is more, much more, but an excellent work to start with if this kind of thing really interests you is Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Weston Price. He traveled the world in the last century studying how healthy isolated groups of people ate who were not subject to modern degenerative disease. His findings are quite illuminating.
It's only when it comes to the voodoo "science" of nutrition that all that goes out the window and people blithely ignore reality while parroting the mantra of "hearthealthywholegrains" and "avoid arterycloggingsaturatedfat"!
Definitely a bad massage!
One point I haven't seen brought up here is that "carbs" does not equal "grains". I am mostly grain-free but I eat lots of veggies and small amounts of fruit. That works well for me.
I will not claim that it will work well for everyone.
When it comes down to it, we all have different needs. Not only nutritionally, but in physical exercise, affection, outdoor time, relaxation time, etc. The one-size-fits-all model of diets today is what bothers me. I am a fan of metabolic typing which helps you identify the ratio of carbs/fat/protein YOU need. You can narrow it down and then you experiment and hone and hone until you find the ratio that makes you feel your best.
The ideal is to eat a meal and then feel energized, have calm peaceful energy, and feel satisfied for 4-5 hours with no cravings, peaks and crashes, irritability, tiredness, nausea, gas, bloating, constipation or the like. Does your meal make you feel great?! Does eating leave you satisfied and happy?
That is how I determine if what I ate was healthy. Not according to some study. I do read a lot and educate myself but I am the expert on my own health.
This also will give you some answers on the debate of why some people thrive on a vegetarian diet and why others need more carbs and then there are those who thrive on a high fat/high protein diet. We are all different. Originally this was determined by our surrounding climate and what food was available but now we are all spread out with a toxic environment and we're born with deficiencies so there are many imbalances. Food can help you balance your system if you observe your body.
my son and students have all witnessed past due milk in the cafeteria being passed out many times. just thought you'd like to know.
You seem to need a crash course in nutrition.
I would highly recommend that you read all works by Dr. Andrew Weil; who has been warning about HFCS for over a decade.
And Michael Pollan who offers some of the most concise, easy to follow and common sense advice in food and nutrition today.
Both are recognized autorities in their feilds and would be great resources for your research.
Best, Shelly Perry
Mrs. Q,
Great project! I will certainly stay tuned. As a registered dietitian and a mom, and an expert in dairy nutrition for the Midwest Dairy Council in Illinois and for the National Dairy Council, I wanted to give you some more information about flavored milk and lactose intolerance.
First of all and most importantly, flavored milk contains the same nine essential nutrients as white milk (calcium, potassium, phosphorus, protein, vitamins A, D and B12, riboflavin, and niacin equivalents). Secondly, a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 2008 found that children and adolescents who drink flavored milk (or white milk) have higher nutrient intakes of vitamin A, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium and potassium and have a body mass index (BMI) that is lower than or comparable to the BMIs of non-milk drinkers. This research showed that children who consume flavored milk do not have higher intakes of added sugars (or total fat) than children who do not consume flavored milk. I have also seen research that shows children who drink flavored milk actually drink fewer soft drinks or other sugar-sweetened beverages – which are empty calories for sure. This is good news as we want our children choosing nutrient-rich foods and beverages! For more information on the science behind flavored milk go to this Dairy Report Blog by my colleague Judy Jarvis: http://www.thedairyreport.com/Pages/TheDairyReportPost.aspx?PostID=187
Regarding your lactose intolerance, you are wise to keep some dairy in your diet. Having counseled thousands of patients, I have heard some people report similar feelings as you: they like dairy, but it doesn’t like them. However, health professionals agree that people with lactose intolerance symptoms should still try to include some dairy foods in their diet order to get the important nutrients dairy provides. In addition to your mention of lactose-free products and the yogurt (which is easier to digest because of the live active cultures), I wanted to share a few other tips. Some people can tolerate small amounts of milk when they drink it with food, or try cooking with milk to boost the nutrition in soups, oatmeal or casseroles. Also, aged cheeses (i.e. Cheddar, Swiss, Monterey Jack) have little or no lactose and are therefore better tolerated by many people.
There is new research indicating that the rate of perceived lactose intolerance is lower than previously thought. For more information on lactose intolerance go to this Dairy Report Blog by my colleague Ann Marie Krautheim:
http://www.thedairyreport.com/Pages/TheDairyReportPost.aspx?PostID=183
Finally, the American Dietetic Association has this to say about HFCS: “Fructose is a component of sucrose (50% fructose), is present in fruit (also known as fruit sugar or levulose), and is added to foods and beverages as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS; 42% to 55% fructose) or in the crystalline form. Fructose has replaced sucrose in many foods and beverages because of its sweetening power, lower cost, and functional properties that enhance flavor, color, and product stability. Scientific evidence supports neither that intakes of nutritive sweeteners by themselves increase the risk of obesity nor that nutritive or nonnutritive sweeteners cause behavioral disorders. However, nutritive sweeteners increase risk of dental caries. It is the position of The American Dietetic Association that consumers can safely enjoy a range of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners when consumed in a diet that is guided by current federal nutrition recommendations, such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Dietary References Intakes, as well as individual health goals.” For the full report go to: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8363
Who decided the kids need skim milk? I was told by doctors that my kids need the fat in milk. It's good for them.
Most mainstream health experts say that children should be switched over to low-fat milk, perhaps even fat-free, by age five.
"Most mainstream health experts say that children should be switched over to low-fat milk, perhaps even fat-free"
That's because most mainstream health experts are idiots.
http://annikadahlqvistblogenglish.blogspot.com/2009/10/dietary-advices-for-children.html
Looking at the grammar and the misspellings in this link (and I read more of the same blog, not just that one page), I'm reasonably sure I know who the idiot is. When you post links to studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, then we will have something to discuss. Until then, this is simply a case of the internet being a place that anyone can publish anything, and a certain percentage of the population will believe it, because P.T. Barnum was right.
Mrs. Q–
I cannot believe that my comment calling for reliable, peer-reviewed studies which appear in reputable and established nutrition journals was censored and yet, a comment calling most mainstream health experts "idiots" was allowed. I had thought you came into this project as "unknowledgeable, but willing to investigate," but now it seems that you either have an agenda or have already been duped by these shams who put up links to the websites of charlatans who promote highly unhealthy lifestyles and "nutritional" practices.
You are a teacher; even if you teach only younger children, surely your professional education included instruction on how to judge when research and studies are valid and reliable, and not simply anecdotal, and in this day and age, must also have included some
education on how to determine the reliability of a website, in a system where anyone can post anything. While I am not surprised that many have already tried to utilize your blog for their own purposes, I am surprised that you seem to have adopted the position that theirs is the more reasonable approach.
Your blog is already beginning to be very widely read, and whether you expected it or not, you now have a responsibility to readers. You have made the leap from a "mere teacher" to writer of an up-and-coming important blog. If you allow yourself to be deceived by those who would use your blog for their purposes, and not allow comments by those who have more conventional views, less knowledgeable readers will be very misled, and may wind up worse off, rather than better.
I apologize– I thought my earlier comment was being censored; it probably just hadn't appeared yet.
One point I haven't seen brought up here is that "carbs" does not equal "grains". I am mostly grain-free but I eat lots of veggies and small amounts of fruit. That works well for me.
Actually it was in an indirect sort of way. The Kitavans, while eating a high carb diet eat neither grains or dairy.
You might find the Kitava Study by Dr. Staffan Lindeberg of interest.
I have only one word in response to "peer review": ClimateGate.
Listening to "experts" has made us obese and sick. Why would we continue to believe them?
Apparently it's only "science" if you agree with its predetermined conclusions. Needless to say, there are many scientists who support what I've presented here. I believe their science is of greater rigor than those who disagree with them. I trust everyone here is intelligent enough to do their own research and determine what is best for themselves and those they are responsible for.