Commercial Milk: Full Fat vs. Non-Fat Nutrient Comparison

Just the Facts Ma'am from for Milk

Whole, 3.5%                             NonFat w/o Vit A



Yes, fat-borne vitamins and minerals are missing from the non-fortified non-fat milk.  But (1) low fat is not non-fat, (2) most low fat milk is fortified with vitamins A&D, and (3) The differences are small unless you're talking getting large percentages of daily calories in liquid milk form.   


MM said…
Yes! Thanks for posting this! It annoys me when people say skim milk is "just lactose". There's a lot more to it -- protein, minerals, B vitamins. Skim milk is almost always fortified with vitamins A & D. There's probably some argument as to how well the fat soluble vitamins are absorbed without any fat, but low fat milk would certainly remedy that problem.
SamAbroad said…
I stay away from artificially fortified food. Law of unintended consequences always seems to come into effect.

If you are taking in a sig amount of cals as milk then as you say you miss out on nutrients.

Then again if you are just having a drop in coffee, you might as well have full fat as the difference in carbs is negligible anyway.

Low fat milk is heresy where I come from (they make kerrygold not far from here), it tastes like crap and even in my low fat days I'd prefer to go without than have that watery excuse for milk.

Then you have the epidemiological evidence that seems to associate full fat dairy with better weight control.
Sven Anders said…
But... whole milk with its glorious bow-to-the-altar-of-fat is pasteurized. That means all those luvvy-wuvvy bacterias are gone. It's dead, Jim. How can anyone even consider drinking this vile stuff? It's probably floating with invisible dead bacterias.
Just a bro looking out for you fellas.
Anonymous said…
Hurrah! At last I got a weblog from where I be capable of genuinely take
valuable facts concerning my study and knowledge.

My site