School Officials Propose Ban of Whole Milk

[liv4fud]

its really scarry when some politicians take the cause-effect relationship too far...

come on now- do kids get fat because of full fat milk available in cafeteria or because their parents / guardians don't have resources (or don't use them) to teach them good eating habits.

while working at delis you see a lot of kids supposedly of semi-depraved economic conditions come in - with decent enough amount of cash in the pocket. and all they buy is chips and pop... nobody goes for a low fat turkey. but ocassionaly you would find someone going with double cheese on steak with extra oil and vinegar...

and I agree with jsolomon, cutting milk and promoting cheetos shouldn't be the option. more PE and may be even educating parents/guardians might be.

[Corinna Dunne]

Here's the thing I have never understood about drinking 2% milk:  whole milk is only around 4%.  So what's the big deal?  You have to drink an awful lot of whole milk before becoming worried about the fat.

←

It's not the fat per se, it's the fact that a cup of whole milk is nearly double the calories of a cup of skim milk. That's a lot of calories, particularly given that you're drinking them. Whole milk is a very efficient way to get calories into people that need them, like infants. Very few of the rest of us need to get so many calories so easily.

←

Therese, I take your point, but I really think that this is picking the wrong battle and missing the big picture.

It is perhaps not so bad if the switch is to vitamin A enriched low fat or skim milk, but I have now reached the point where I prefer minimum intervention with food... so leave the fat in and look elsewhere for the real culprits. The trouble is - at least this side of the ocean - when you give milk a bad name (which is unfair, because 4% fat is considered to be really low fat for many food stuffs), many parents give their kids "Actimel", which is a yoghurt drink that is low in fat and high in sugar and of course has the all important live bacteria in it (which is the emotive selling point). But in reality, if you mixed a few spoons of full fat live yoghurt with some pasteurised orange juice from a carton, you would have a much better product at a minimum cost with no unnecessary packaging.

Yes, it infuriates me... I admit it's one of my major gripes. End of rant!

[therese]

More milk is not the same as whole milk.

←

But, any milk is better than soda.

←

Water is another great choice for a child (or adult) who is already getting adequate nutrition from the solid portion of the diet.

[therese]

The trouble is - at least this side of the ocean - when you give milk a bad name (which is unfair, because 4% fat is considered to be really low fat for many food stuffs)...

←

Low fat for a food stuff, but high fat for a beverage.

...many parents give their kids "Actimel", which is a yoghurt drink that is low in fat and high in sugar and of course has the all important live bacteria in it (which is the emotive selling point).

And it's delicious. I agree, not suitable as a beverage. Not a bad after school snack, though.

I'm basically on the same page as you when it comes to the whole processed food aspect of things, and that's one of the things about the whole milk/skim milk argument that's always perplexed me: whole milk is processed. I grew up (my summers, anyway) on a small dairy farm and we literally never drank whole milk. Cream (which readily separates from the milk unless it's been processed by homogenization) was skimmed off and either used fresh or clabbered and churned into butter. Drinking whole milk and then also using butter in our diets would have meant that we were effectively "double dipping" when it came to fat.

[slkinsey]

Here's the thing I have never understood about drinking 2% milk:  whole milk is only around 4%.  So what's the big deal?  You have to drink an awful lot of whole milk before becoming worried about the fat.

It's not the fat per se, it's the fact that a cup of whole milk is nearly double the calories of a cup of skim milk. That's a lot of calories, particularly given that you're drinking them. Whole milk is a very efficient way to get calories into people that need them, like infants. Very few of the rest of us need to get so many calories so easily.

I guess it depends on how much milk you're drinking. Regardless of whether whole milk has almost double the calories of skim milk, it's still not that high. We're talking about something like 150 calories per cup. And when I was growing up I certainly wasn't drinking more than four cups of milk each day maximum. That's 600 calories compared to 340 calories for skim milk. Now, I can't believe that 260 calories a day is going to make a big difference to a growing active child with an otherwise healthy diet that does not include tons of extra calories in the form of fruit juice and soda. And if we're talking about adults, I can't believe that the volume of milk consumed on a weekly basis with cereal and coffee will be significant either.

[Tess]

And if we're talking about adults, I can't believe that the volume of milk consumed on a weekly basis with cereal and coffee will be significant either.

←

All those adults drinking venti non-skim lattes are consuming a *lot* of calories in whole milk.

[Patrick S]

Here's the thing I have never understood about drinking 2% milk:  whole milk is only around 4%.  So what's the big deal?  You have to drink an awful lot of whole milk before becoming worried about the fat.

It's not the fat per se, it's the fact that a cup of whole milk is nearly double the calories of a cup of skim milk. That's a lot of calories, particularly given that you're drinking them. Whole milk is a very efficient way to get calories into people that need them, like infants. Very few of the rest of us need to get so many calories so easily.

I guess it depends on how much milk you're drinking. Regardless of whether whole milk has almost double the calories of skim milk, it's still not that high. We're talking about something like 150 calories per cup. And when I was growing up I certainly wasn't drinking more than four cups of milk each day maximum. That's 600 calories compared to 340 calories for skim milk. Now, I can't believe that 260 calories a day is going to make a big difference to a growing active child with an otherwise healthy diet that does not include tons of extra calories in the form of fruit juice and soda.

←

Definitely it depends on how much milk you are drinking, but 260 calories per day difference is nothing to sneeze at!

If you are holding all other factors equal, than 260 calories a day can certainly make a big difference. Consider a skim milk drinker who is neither gaining nor losing weight, i.e. is in caloric balance, who switches from 4 cups of skim to 4 cups of whole, that would give them a positive caloric imbalance of 260 calories a day. Again, all else remaining equal, that would be expected to result in weight gain of about 2lbs/month, 24lbs/year, 240lbs/decade.

Conversely, consider a whole milk drinker who is starting from a positive caloric imbalance of 100/day. who switches from 4 cups of whole to 4 cups of skim, that would give them a negative caloric imbalance of 160 calories a day. Again, all else remaining equal, that would be expected to result in weight loss of about 1lb/22 days, 10lbs/220 days, and so on.

Edit to add: 260 calories is roughly 10% of the caloric intake needed for men of average weight with average physical activity to maintain their body weight.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[therese]

Definitely it depends on how much milk you are drinking, but 260 calories per day difference is nothing to sneeze at!

←

Exactly. Thanks for doing the calculation, Patrick.

Another way of thinking about it would be to calculate how much more physical activity you'd have to do to use up those calories and thereby keep from gaining weight.

[slkinsey]

And if we're talking about adults, I can't believe that the volume of milk consumed on a weekly basis with cereal and coffee will be significant either.

All those adults drinking venti non-skim lattes are consuming a *lot* of calories in whole milk.

They're consuming a lot of calories in milk period -- regardless of whether it is skim or whole. A venti latte at Starbucks is 340 calories, but it's not like a venti skim latte is only ten calories. A venti skim latte still comes in at a whopping 210 calories. Now, it is true of course that the person opting for the skim latte is consuming 130 fewer calories, but the real issue is the consumption of the venti latte to begin with -- especially multiples of this drink on a daily basis. A venti skim latte still has substantially more calories than a can of full-sugar Coca-Cola. So, if you're drinking 4 venti lattes a day, the difference between skim and whole is the least of your worries.

[therese]

So, if you're drinking 4 venti lattes a day, the difference between skim and whole is the least of your worries.

←

Wow, I'll say. For one thing you're likely really really poor. And probably sort of jittery.

[Tess]

It really has to be viewed in the context of your entire diet, I believe. If you're trying to lose or maintain weight, consuming a lot of calories as liquids of any kind is apt to make your job harder. A lot of the people I know who grew up with weight problems were seemingly taught not to drink water; they drank, juice, milk and soda all the time. Soda is the worst offender, in my view.

However, a difference of 100+ calories per serving of anything adds up if you're eating it daily. I really noticed that once I started tracking calories (or Weight Watchers points). It was amazing how much things like whole-milk cappucinos and yogurt were adding to my calories consumed.

[SuzySushi]

Our HMO (Kaiser Permanente), pediatrician, and dietitian advise switching children over age 2 to low-fat or even skim milk, and no more than 8 ounces of fruit juice per day, because they'd like to see children get most of their calories from -- presumably nutritious -- solid food rather than liquids. It's very easy for young kids to fill up on whole milk, then not have room to eat other foods.

[Tess]

This is making me think of that lovely thread about Japanese school lunches. Would that we had that kind of food in schools here.

We had an article in the paper about kids who'd been going to the local (Chicago suburbs) grade school for Japanese expats, going to the regular public high school for the first time and coming home crying because of the food. (That wasn't all the article talked about but of course I remember the food bit.)

[jsolomon]

[rant] What kind of dumb jack-ass prefers giving an 8-year-old a diet instead of telling them to go outside and play? Your physician and your HMO should be damned ashamed of themselves.

Why are we the only animal that we seem to see with fat kids? Because we don't have them do anything. That is patently retardate.

It's also unfair to the spirit of eGullet to tell kids that they can't eat X, Y, or Z because it's "unhealthy". When you do that, you're stunting their experience of the world, and more times than not, they are being fed either complete misinformation, or only vaguely correct information, on how to have a balanced diet.

On the other hand, if you kick the kids outside and say "play"... you have few worries. You can just about shoot food down them with a firehose--any food--and they'll thrive.

But, the suit-and-tie person who just wants to make their mortgage and live a life of quiet desperation hears that kids are going to die early because they're fat, decides that Something Must Be Done. So, this misguided adult takes a page out of the Misguided Adult Weight Control Handbook which has in appendix A "...sweating is uncouth and should be avoided at all costs..." and applies it--incorrectly--to the Children Development Handbook.

If humans weren't intended to drink whole milk for a significant portion of their lives, breasts wouldn't produce it!

[/rant]

[therese]

If humans weren't intended to drink whole milk for a significant portion of their lives, breasts wouldn't produce it!

[/rant]

←

Um, just how significant a portion of ones life are we talking about here?

[slkinsey]

This is getting away from the topic of this thread, but it does make me wonder about some things. I remember seeing a picture in the NY Times of schoolchildren lining up for vaccinations in the 60s. My father said, "notice something different about this picture?" I thought, "well, it's mostly white kids. . ." He said, "no. . . take a look: not a single one of them is overweight." And then I thought back to my elementary school in Boston. Back in the 70s, each grade in my school had maybe one overweight kid. Now, the same school is probably 40% overweight. What is it that has changed so much?

[SuzySushi]

[rant] What kind of dumb jack-ass prefers giving an 8-year-old a diet instead of telling them to go outside and play?  Your physician and your HMO should be damned ashamed of themselves.

←

Are you ranting at my HMO and pediatrician? (I"m the only one in this thread who mentioned an HMO, as far as I can tell.)

The average calorie needs for a normal, active 4-6 year old is 1,800 calories a day.

The average calorie needs for a normal, active 7-10 year old is 2,000 calories.

If a child drinks 4 cups of whole milk @ 150 calories per cup, plus let's say 1 cup of orange juice at 110 calories, that's 710 calories just from "nutritious" liquids -- 39% of the entire day's calorie requirements for a 4-6 y.o. and 35.5% for a 7-10 y.o.

That's an awful lot.

If humans weren't intended to drink whole milk for a significant portion of their lives, breasts wouldn't produce it!

[/rant]

←

Exactly how long are human beings expected to drink breast milk?

[jsolomon]

Um, just how significant a portion of ones life are we talking about here?

←

Honestly? Using Wikipedia's life expectancy from Neolithic humans (late stone age) and with La Leche.org's opinion and mine that there is no set age to wean, I'll pick 20 years as a human life span, and 2 years as a typical breastfeeding span.

So, 10%. That's significant. I know of children who were weaned just before attending Kindergarten--in America, and from educated, caring, informed parents. But, we're losing sight of the real issue.

Some damned fool wants to glue kids' asses to seats so he can answer to GW's "No Child Left Behind" tom-foolery. And, contributing to the fact that Mr. High-and-Mighty-with-his-PhD-from-Jack-ass-U doesn't want to say "Enough!", when the kids get fat, he says, "Our school will mandate they have 130 fewer calories a day and 110 more milligrams of sodium and calcium-disodium EDTA". Feh!

Honestly, why not give them 20 more minutes of recess or structured PE a day? Why is no one asking that question?

I'm not saying that milk or exercise are a cure-all. But, if you're worried about a group of kids' weight, you're a lot further on the beneficial side of the power curve if you let them have their milk and exercise than if you put them on diets and strap their butts to the desk so they can have the test taught to them.

Besides, when was the last time the average eG-er needed to know all 50 states AND their capitals AT THE SAME TIME? Let 'em play, fer chrissake.

edit: grammar police

Edited December 12, 2005 by jsolomon (log)

[SuzySushi]

Um, just how significant a portion of ones life are we talking about here?

←

Honestly? Using Wikipedia's life expectancy from Neolithic humans (late stone age) and with La Leche.org's opinion and mine that there is no set age to wean, I'll pick 20 years as a human life span, and 2 years as a typical breastfeeding span.

So, 10%.

←

Hey, the average lifespan today is a heck of a lot longer than 20 years. This is not the Neolithic age.

Does this mean, by your calculations, that children should live almost exclusively on a diet of breast milk until they're almost 8 years old?

[jsolomon]

Are you ranting at my HMO and pediatrician? (I"m the only one in this thread who mentioned an HMO, as far as I can tell.)

←

Yes, I am. I think that they are giving adult-palatable advice to child-sized problems.

I am not denying that to maintain weight, calories in must equal calories out. But, kids are not meant to maintain. Kids are meant to develop skeletally, neurologically, and muscularly.

That means 2 things: stimulation, and calories. We're doing a fine job supplying the calories. But, we're falling very short on stimulation.

I say that in the most concerned, diligent, honest manner. I'm not even attacking your physician (HMO's can be obliterated for all the good they do, though). I am attacking his advice. I am attacking it strongly because I believe he's not properly addressing the problem.

[therese]

I'm not saying that milk or exercise are a cure-all.  But, if you're worried about a group of kids' weight, you're a lot further on the beneficial side of the power curve if you let them have their milk and exercise then if you put them on diets and strap their butts to the desk so they can have the test taught to them.

←

I agree, you have to look at both sides of the caloric intake/expenditure equation. I just don't see what's so very important about making sure that children are drinking whole milk.

Humans, Neolithic or modern, drink whole milk (breast milk) as infants and young children, and plenty of children continue to nurse through toddlerhood. But those children are not getting most of their calories from milk because they're also eating solids. And they're not even get most of their hydration from milk as they're also consuming other beverages, like water.

[jsolomon]

Hey, the average lifespan today is a heck of a lot longer than 20 years. This is not the Neolithic age.

Does this mean, by your calculations, that children should live almost exclusively on a diet of breast milk until they're almost 8 years old?

←

I know that the average lifespan today is a heck of a lot longer than 20 years.

However, the average development span of a child is not much changed since then. And, when mother nature chose what went into milk, she did it in a very deliberate, informed manner. Milk is good food by design.

OTOH, why not give them an apple or an orange instead of cheetohs? Skim milk and fruit is a choice alternate from whole milk that I could totally get behind.

[Tess]

Honestly, why not give them 20 more minutes of recess or structured PE a day?  Why is no one asking that question?

I'm not saying that milk or exercise are a cure-all.  But, if you're worried about a group of kids' weight, you're a lot further on the beneficial side of the power curve if you let them have their milk and exercise then if you put them on diets and strap their butts to the desk so they can have the test taught to them.

Besides, when was the last time the average eG-er needed to know all 50 states AND their capitals AT THE SAME TIME?  Let 'em play, fer chrissake.

←

At this point, all the PE in the world isn't going to undo the complete lack of awareness many Americans seem to have about what they are eating. While the particular guidelines put forth here may be somewhat silly (encouraging lower-fat versions of junk food perpetuates the taste for junk food, IMO, plus "low fat" often means high in sugar) the basic idea of educating people about nutrition is hardly ridiculous.

[ludja]

This is getting away from the topic of this thread, but it does make me wonder about some things.  I remember seeing a picture in the NY Times of schoolchildren lining up for vaccinations in the 60s.  My father said, "notice something different about this picture?"  I thought, "well, it's mostly white kids. . ."  He said, "no. . . take a look: not a single one of them is overweight."  And then I thought back to my elementary school in Boston.  Back in the 70s, each grade in my school had maybe one overweight kid.  Now, the same school is probably 40% overweight.  What is it that has changed so much?

←

Much greater soda and juice consumption

The quality and portion size of the meals and snacks parents serve their kids (lots of processed food)

Eating out at restaurants much more frequently, including but not restricted to fast food. Even non-fast food restaurants have much more calories per meal than an appropriately sized relatively healthy meal at home. (we probably ate out once a month at most)

Less exercise (less gym at school, less playing outside, more tv, computer and video games)

It was the same in my schools (mid 70's thru early 80's). Only sometimes was there even one poor overweight kid who would get teased on a whole bus of kids. As you said, about one or two kids per a grade of 100-200.

[therese]

What is it that has changed so much?

←

Wealth. I'm not talking about individual wealth, as of course the wealthy among us actually tend to be the thinnest and healthiest, but wealth as a society. Food is easier to get (no labor whatsoever involved) and it's cheaper.

Obesity is a consequence of improved standard of living.