fat/low fat

Question
   I am confused. I read recently that whole fat foods are better than low fat. This was concluded by scientists in Switzerland following thourough research. Is this a fact? I have somewhat of a phobia about heart disease ( and cancer and diabetes and arthritis and ... well, never mind) Anyway I like milk and drink quite abit of it sometimes but I don't know if I should drink the 1%, 2% or whole. I would also like to know if milk can cause kidney stones? Sometimes I deliberately go for a good while without any milk at all because I know that moderation in all things is probably the best all round rule. Using reason my guess would be that the closer to natural the better it would with anything. Therefore I would think that whole milk would be better even though it would seem to defy logic as the experiments in Switzerland seemed to do. My concern is with clogging the arteries. Any way I can't seem to accept the findings of the experiments (or reasoning concerning the better quality of what's most "natural")and tend to buy more low fat milk than I do whole. Thank you.

Answer
Hi Ray,

Yes, read the health headlines, then find out who paid for the results to determine if it is enginered science.

Yes, closer to nature is better, more likely to be something your body can utilize. Have you noticed more and more Lowfat this and Diet that there is in the supermarket, the fatter people have become? Empty food, food you can't use leaved you empty and hungry and eating.

Excess protein causes kidney stones, and more problems.

The protein in milk can't be used w/o the presence of fat, so no fat low fat milk is a sick joke. Also, the calcium in packaged milk is in a form that pulls calcium out of you, not add it. Countries that use the most diary products have the most osteoporosis, and vice versa. More at www.notmilk.com

Susan O www.premiumfuel.com

1. Prev:Cancer and nutrition
2. Next:Is fried foods in Canola oil healthy?