Some trivia about milk, veges, carbs and metaformin?

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
recently I started looking at the different milks for myself and discovered
a low fat, cholesterol free milk that had only half the carb content of the
milk that the nutritionist recommended, so I happily changed to this low fat
milk . I just happened to glance at the carb content of this low fat milk
the other day and was shocked to discover that that the manufacturer had
increased th carb content by about 16%. Now if I want to buy a milk with
lower carb I have pay double the price for a milk with only 8% more carb
than the original low carb. What makes me more suspicious about increasing
sugar content is the way cereals are loaded with sugar to appeal to
children's taste buds. Do you remember a milk with caciul to builder
stronger bones years ago? It had about 50% more sugar. Maybe to make the
milk taste better because calcium/chalk has a yuk taste?

Just think if we could take the sugar out of milk, what a beautiful non carb
drink we could have!

Not so long ago I think I remember someone saying that they have more
trouble consuming milk than vegetables. Now when I look at the milk and
vegetables I consume I see that the vegetables have more than double the
carb content of the milk. So I guess that person probably has an
intolerance for milk, rather than it being a matter of carbs.

I saw a program on TV in the last couple of days. It wasn't a sophisticated
program. There were no women involved. It was looking at what classes of
food create the most gasses in the intestines. As expected, baked beans
created the most - Mel Brookes, Blazing Saddles; but what I found
interesting was that the type of food that ranked second was something like
green leafy veges. So perhaps people taking metaform should avoid such
vegetables, or perhaps some diabetic scientists should undertake a study
into what foods people taking metaformin would do best to avoid.

Nev.

Nev. <nev@nowhere.org> wrote:
> 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
> recently I started looking at the different milks for myself and discovered
> a low fat, cholesterol free milk that had only half the carb content of the
> milk that the nutritionist recommended, so I happily changed to this low fat
> milk . I just happened to glance at the carb content of this low fat milk
> the other day and was shocked to discover that that the manufacturer had
> increased th carb content by about 16%. Now if I want to buy a milk with
> lower carb I have pay double the price for a milk with only 8% more carb
> than the original low carb. What makes me more suspicious about increasing
> sugar content is the way cereals are loaded with sugar to appeal to
> children's taste buds. Do you remember a milk with caciul to builder
> 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.

--
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/]

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
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Nev. <nev@nowhere.org> wrote:
> > 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
> > recently I started looking at the different milks for myself and discovered
> > a low fat, cholesterol free milk that had only half the carb content of the
> > milk that the nutritionist recommended, so I happily changed to this low fat
> > milk . I just happened to glance at the carb content of this low fat milk
> > the other day and was shocked to discover that that the manufacturer had
> > increased th carb content by about 16%. Now if I want to buy a milk with
> > lower carb I have pay double the price for a milk with only 8% more carb
> > than the original low carb. What makes me more suspicious about increasing
> > sugar content is the way cereals are loaded with sugar to appeal to
> > children's taste buds. Do you remember a milk with caciul to builder
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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/]

"Chris Malcolm" wrote ...

> 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.
----

In article <45883d77$0$5744$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Nev." <nev@nowhere.org> wrote:

> "Chris Malcolm" wrote ...
>
> > 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

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