meaning of "99% fat free"

Under U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations, an amount of fat 0.5 grams or more is rounded up to the nearest whole gram. Thus, while the nutrtional labeling of your ice cream bar may say that it contains 1 gram of fat, it may actually contain anywhere between 0.5 gram and 1.0 gram of fat. 1% of 77 grams would be 0.77 grams.

You’re dead wrong. Decaf coffee does have 97% of the caffeine removed.

You can’t allow cynicism to get in the way of understanding facts.

Funny I also think it doesn’t sould very good, as cream has a percentage of fat way over 1%, So I would feel ripped off getting something called ice cream with only 1% fat, and would expect it to taste no way as good as the real stuff with normal fat levels

Re-check the wrapper. Does it actually call itself “ice cream”? Or does it call itself “ice milk” or a “frozen dessert”?

I still don’t quite get what you mean. “The remaining 1% contained fat” and the rest didn’t have any? Are you saying you thought the fat sits in the top or bottom 1% of the stuff and the rest is OK? How much fat did you think the 1% contained? I’m just plain not following the thinking here, sorry!

Imagine the product was yogurt. I had mistakenly thought that if it said 99 percent fat free, that 99 percent of it was yogurt without any fat, and 1 percent of it was yogurt that had some fat in it. Sort of if they made it by squirting 99 parts completely fat-free yogurt into the cup, then 1 squirt of regular yogurt into it. Then mixed up, I guess.

I did not think about any further than that. Well, actually, once I did think about it further than that, I came to the now-obvious conclusion that the 1 percent is pure fat.

You’re buying the wrong hamburger.

What do you mean technically? Sugar is sugar, fat is fat. They’re completely different things.

Removing 1% of the fat from whole milk would not make a noticable taste at all. Whole milk is about 3.7% fat by weight. Its gets almost 50% of its calories from fat, which is what we should be concerned with. 1% milk is whole milk that has had almost 75% of its fat removed, that’s why there is such a difference in taste.

Don’t think there’s much of a difference between 1% and 2% milk? 2% milk has twice as much fat per serving than 1% milk.

No, really?

I almost said that, but it’s not quite true. Butter is part water and part milk solids, mostly fat, and part something or other. So, the calories in butter don’t entirely come from fat. Close, but not all of them.

I strive for accuracy, and sometimes I get it. The striving is the thing. :rolleyes:

Then again, an entire 200mL glass of milk contains about 7g of fat which is about the same amount of fat as 25g of potato chips or a rather large handful. Which means if you switch from whole milk to 2%, you can have a whole whopping 1/2 a handful more potato chips. If you switch from 2% to 1%, you can have another 1/4 handful of potato chips.

Not worth it IMHO.

I never understood Sean Connery’s line in Medicine Man where he holds up an herbal extract from the rain forest and says “It’s three percent pure caffeine.” How can three percent of anything be “pure”? Doesn’t pure mean 100 percent? Does he mean that if you isolated the three percent of the stuff that’s caffeine, then it would be pure caffeine? The statement just doesn’t make any sense no matter how you slice it.

I once saw an ad for something, saying it was “90% fat free”.

I never saw that ad a second time. I think they very rapidly realised that 10% fat is not anything to draw much attention to.

By switching from whole milk from to 1% milk you are consuming 50 less fat calories and going from 34g of cholesterol to 10mg.

Whole milk gets about 46% of calories from fat (not good) and 1% milk gets about 19% of it calories from fat (not bad). If you make similar changes like that throughout the day, it would make a big difference in how healthy your overall diet is. Of course if every switch you think about making you rationalize by saying “Its only a 3/4 of a large handful of fat laden chips” you won’t think its a big difference, but it is.

‘Technically’ because sugars are converted to glucose and then to fat when the body doesn’t burn all of the calories they contain. Eating something that has no fat but is high in sugar is going to cause you to put on a few pounds unless you happen to be wrestling grizzly bears or doing laps with cheetas.

Who cares what percentage of calories of a product you get from fat? If you reduced the amount of protein in milk, it would increase the percentage calories you get from fat but that doesn’t make it bad. The amount of fat in milk is generally so low that I really fail to see how cutting it is going to significantly affect your health. There are far more profitable ways to cut down on fat.

People who are trying to eat healthy care. Calories are filling. If you are getting filled up by foods that get a high percentage of calories from fat (especially saturated fat) you’re not eating healthy. Read this.

I already explained this. Eight grams of fat (and 34g of cholesterol) from a food containing only 150 calories is not a low amount of fat. It doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, but if all your foods contained that % of fat, you wouldn’t be eating healthy. The daily limit for cholesterol is usually set at about 300mg. Getting 34g from a product only giving you such a small amount of your daily calories - not good.


If people are trying to lose weight, they should care about fat per unit weight or fat per unit volume. Not fat as a percentage of calories. If I dip a stick of celery in some olive oil and eat it, I’m getting probably 99% of my calories from fat. If I mix a pound of butter with a pound of sugar, I’m getting about 60% of my calories from fat. Which is healthier?

Hang on, how can something have 8g of fat and 34g of cholesterol? cholesterol is a fat. Besides, milk is about 90% water so it’s impossible to have 34g of anything thats not water. And there has only been very teneous if any links between food cholesterol and blood serum choesterol, Instead, the amount of saturated and trans fats (of which milk admittedly is fairly high in) is far stronger correlated with blood serum cholesterol levels.

As I stated before, looking at percentages can be misleading. instead, it’s much easier to just think in total grams of fat. If you like, set yourself a fat budget and try not to exceed it. The total amount of fat in milk contributes so trivially towards the fat budget compared to things like potato chips that it would be very far down the list of things to start cutting.

Willett, W.C., Leibel, R.L., “Dietary Fat Is Not A Major Determinant of Body Fat,” American Journal of Medicine, 113(9BS), 2002, pages 47S-59S.

From the abstract of that article:

Willet, W.C., “Is Dietary Fat a Major Determinant of Body Fat?,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67(Suppl), 1998, pages 556S-562S.

From the abstract:

Horvath, P.J., Eagen, C.K., Fisher, N.M., et al., “The Effects of Varying Dietary Fat on Performance and Metabolism in Trained Male and Female Runners,” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 19(1), 2000, pages 52-60.

From the abstract:

McGee, D., Reed, D., Stemmerman, G., et al., “The Relationship of Dietary Fat and Cholesterol to Mortality in 10 Years: The Honolulu Heart Program,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 14(1), 1985, pages 97-105.

From the abstract:

Dreon, D.M., Fenstrom, H.A., Campos, H., et al., “Change in Dietary Saturated Fat Intake Is Correlated With Change in Mass of Large Low-Density-Lipoprotein Particles in Men,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67, 1998, pages 828-836.

From the abstract: