>From ismnt-owner Fri Jan 31 21:09:09 1997

From: Lloyd Meztger <lem5@cornell.edu>

Subject: %fat vs %calories from fat

Linda wrote,

>

>There is often confusion concerning the fat content of milk. The label

>ratings are in terms of weight, not calories. Whole milk @3.3% fat has

>150 calories, 8 gm of fat. 8 gm of fat =72 calories making whole milk

>actually 48% fat by calories! Definitely a high fat food!

>

>Linda Burton, M.S.

>lburton@cce.cornell.edu

>Jamestown, N.Y.

>

Low fat milk in not a high fat product. However, a high percentage of the

calories in low fat milk are derived from fat. There is a distinct

difference which is important. In his original post Richard referred to fat

as a source of antibiotic and pesticide residue, and in this case it is

appropriate to talk about the amount of fat (%fat on a weight basis) not the

percentage of calories derived from fat. As an example, say you have two

products which each contain 2% fat on a weight basis and one product has a

high percentage of its calories from fat and the other doesn't. If you

consume these products you are eating the same amount of fat and therefore

are eating the same amount of antibiotic and pesticide residue regardless of

whether or not one of the products has a higher percentage of its calories

from fat. Therefore, Richard should have referred to the %fat in milk on a

weight basis and not the percentage of calories derived from fat.

Additionally, if the high percentage of calories derived from fat in low fat

milk is a concern, you can always consume skim milk which has a very small

percentage of its calories derived from fat.

Lloyd