Because there is no God (and he hates me) I can’t drink milk. But there was nothing else to read at the breakfast table this morning, so I read the milk carton.
What exactly does “2%” mean?
The nutrition label says one serving has 130 calories, 45 being from fat. That’s over 34% fat, not 2%. Then on the front label it says “37% less fat than whole milk”.
Where are they getting these numbers?
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Because there is no God (and he hates me) I can’t drink milk. But there was nothing else to read at the breakfast table this morning, so I read the milk carton.
What exactly does “2%” mean?
The nutrition label says one serving has 130 calories, 45 being from fat. That’s over 34% fat, not 2%. Then on the front label it says “37% less fat than whole milk”.
Where are they getting these numbers?
[/QUOTE]
Whole milk is closer to 3-3.5% fat.
“Although two-percent milk, with its 5 grams of fat, may not be called “low fat,” the product does qualify for a “reduced fat” claim. “Reduced fat” means that the fat content of the food has been reduced by at least 25 percent per serving compared to the full-fat food. Because whole milk contains 8 grams of fat, 2-percent milk with its 5 grams of fat has more than a 25 percent reduction in fat. “Light” may be used on milk whose fat has been reduced by 50 percent or more per serving, for example 4 grams of fat or about 1.5 percent milkfat.”
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00611.html
They are talking about milkfat only. Whole milk is 4% milkfat, 2% is 2% milkfat. This has nothing to do with the total fat content of milk. I don’t know enough more than that to explain.
% fat by weight, rather than % fat by calories contributed?
[QUOTE=pkbites]
The nutrition label says one serving has 130 calories, 45 being from fat. That’s over 34% fat, not 2%.
[/QUOTE]
Apples and oranges. The 2% figure is milk fat by weight, while the calorie content is not. Milk is mostly water (87.2% water), which has no calories, so what’s left (3.7% milk fat, 3.5% protein, 4.9% lactose, and 0.7% ash.), ) comprise all of the calories.
That’s why the devil made Lactaid caplets.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Apples and oranges. The 2% figure is milk fat by weight, while the calorie content is not. Milk is mostly water (87.2% water), which has no calories, so what’s left (3.7% milk fat, 3.5% protein, 4.9% lactose, and 0.7% ash.), ) comprise all of the calories.
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine)
There’s ASH in milk?!
Ash is defined as anything that’s left after burning. It includes all the minerals.
[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
That’s why the devil made Lactaid caplets.
[/QUOTE]
Can’t speak for pkbites, but for me they are only about 75% effective. Much better then nothing when I must have some ice cream, though.
All of this is assuming we are talking about regular old 'merican cow milk, btw.
Actual fat content varies by species and diet, blah blah blah.
See the bottom of this link: http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/intro.html
Be glad you are not reduced to surviving on seal milk.
Perhaps a couple of jennies in the backyard…
[QUOTE=papaw]
They are talking about milkfat only. Whole milk is 4% milkfat, 2% is 2% milkfat. This has nothing to do with the total fat content of milk. I don’t know enough more than that to explain.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is my answer. Thanks. 
[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
That’s why the devil made Lactaid caplets.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
Can’t speak for pkbites, but for me they are only about 75% effective.
[/QUOTE]
And they do nothing for me. I’m not lactose "intolerant’, I actually have an allergy. I get spasms in my esophagus and an attack of mucus in my chest cavity. I have trouble breathing and get a hard spasming squeeze in my chest. I’ve read that this type of reaction feels similar to a heart attack. It’s very scary and painful. And there isn’t any meds that work for me to prevent/relieve the situation.
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
Can’t speak for pkbites, but for me they are only about 75% effective. Much better then nothing when I must have some ice cream, though.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, they work better for me if I crunch them up and swallow them with the very first bite of whatever it is–send them down first, IOW, so they’re there in the intestinal tract along with the ice cream, rather than try to send them down after you’ve eaten it, because by then it’s too late.
ETA: You can also buy two quarts of Lact-Aid and an ice cream maker from Wal-Mart and make your own ice cream, which is something I’ve been meaning to do myself for some time now.
[QUOTE=papaw]
They are talking about milkfat only. Whole milk is 4% milkfat, 2% is 2% milkfat. This has nothing to do with the total fat content of milk. I don’t know enough more than that to explain.
[/QUOTE]
If it’s milk with no additives then wouldn’t all of the fat be milk fat? It’s not like it’s going to have some olive oil fat in it.
I think your answer is actually this one:
You’ve got 2% fat in the milk but most of the milk contains no calories so the % of calories contributed by the fat is high.
Exactly. Whole milk is about 3-3.5% fat, 2% (or semi-skimmed as we call it) is 2% fat. That’s all there is to it.
Milk really doesn’t have much fat in it at all.
pkbites, you can’t look at the total calories vs calories from fat and get any meaningful figure about fat content.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Ash is defined as anything that’s left after burning. It includes all the minerals.
[/QUOTE]
OK, but I’m still confused. Do they actually add burnt stuff to milk?
[QUOTE=chorpler]
OK, but I’m still confused. Do they actually add burnt stuff to milk?
[/QUOTE]
No, the cow does that. 
Ash content is just the inorganic content like minerals: calcium, phosphorus, potassium, etc.
I’m curious as to the prevalence of the different grades of milk. Why is 2% so much more common than plain whole milk in restaurants, etc.? And someone must buy 1% or you wouldn’t see it on the shelf, but why?
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
I’m curious as to the prevalence of the different grades of milk. Why is 2% so much more common than plain whole milk in restaurants, etc.? And someone must buy 1% or you wouldn’t see it on the shelf, but why?
[/QUOTE]
I switched from 2% to 1% milk to help control my cholesterol and fat intake.
1% has a little less fat and less calories per serving than 2%. Cite
Now that fat free stuff is just revolting. I wouldn’t even call it “milk.” Blech.
My question is, why can’t all milk be consistent in how many calories they have? I buy different milk depending on what I am doing (bulking up or trying to lose weight, if I need more or less calories) and sometime Skim has 80 calories, sometimes 90, 2% sometimes has 120 and other times 130, and whole milk is sometimes 150 and other times 160. It seems it depends on brands.
[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
My question is, why can’t all milk be consistent in how many calories they have? I buy different milk depending on what I am doing (bulking up or trying to lose weight, if I need more or less calories) and sometime Skim has 80 calories, sometimes 90, 2% sometimes has 120 and other times 130, and whole milk is sometimes 150 and other times 160. It seems it depends on brands.
[/QUOTE]
[hijack] Did you check the serving size? I don’t know about milk ( I don’t drink much of it), but on a lot of items, the manufacturer or distributer makes the serving size smaller to reduce the calories per serving. [hijack over]