« Book quiz update, podcast | Main | Baseball's Steroids Problem Won't Go Away »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I think the FDA would probably agree with you, but it isn't their area of responsibility. Low-fat is very much marketing rather than being about nutrition. Many of the low-fat products are actually worse because they contain excess sugars. So just as much in the way of energy, but giving a sugar hit as the energy is absorbed rapidly which seems to do bad things to the metabolism.


You seem a bit hypbolic on this one.

These numbers, it's obvious that skim milk really have HALF the calories of of whole milk.


Is 2% a scam? Well, you can get 100%, 84%, 70% or 55%. (Rough extrapolation). That really is quite a difference.

It is not as though 2% exists in a market without skim milk. These numbers should all be taken in context of each other.

Do you think -- or are you implying -- that people think that skim/nonfat milk has 1/8 the carleries of whole milk?


Didn't the FDA regulate just this issue maybe a decade ago, when they forced 2% milk to be termed "reduced fat" rather than "low fat"? 1% milk is "low fat" - I believe their determining factor is the number of grams of fat.

While the couple of tablespoons you might put in coffee are not particularly meaningful, a cup (8 oz) of skim milk has 75 (50%) fewer calories than whole milk. That's nontrivial if you have a 16 oz latte (which is 15 oz of milk) and bowl of cereal (another 6 oz) every day. Save three times as many calories by using nonfat milk instead of 2%!

Which points out another couple of numbersenses: (a) 1% is half of 2%, not "just 1 less on a 100-point scale, and (b) the slope of the calorie reduction is important.


ceolaf: "nonfat" milk itself is misleading as it implies no fat, which implies no worries. It's all about calories and it matters less where the calories come from. "Nonfat" milk has 83 calories per cup, which is less than 148 but the difference between whole and nonfat sounds like 100% and 0%.

Gary: An average person takes in thousands of calories per day. Go over to Starbucks website and see for yourself. The Grande Frappuccino with whole milk is 240 calories; with nonfat milk, it's 220 calories.

The point I'm making here is the effect of marketing on people's perception. Sample some friends and ask them what percent difference is whole milk versus 2% milk, and tell us what they say.


A side note: these percentages do matter very much for some people: My parents are dairy farmers, and as such are paid partially by percentage of fat in the milk. The basic idea is that more dairy products such as cheese can be obtained from fat-rich milk (4 to 5% of fat with a good livestock) than from low-fat milk (2-3%). So I grew up with my parents talking about diets for the cows that would optimize fat content without compromising other indicators for milk quality (and monetary value). These discussions are in the order of magnitude of 3.6 vs 3.8%!


It is easy to see the problem with the Frappuccino http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/frappuccino-blended-beverages/coffee-frappuccino-blended-coffee It contains 50g of sugar, giving 17% of the daily recommended carbohydrates.

Philip Howard

At Sainsburys (UK), milk is labelled by its fat content; 4%, 2%, 1% and 0.1%. Since the alternative is 'full-fat', 'semi-skimmed' and 'skimmed', I'm much happier with the fat percentages as labels.

The fact that milk has sugar (lactose) in as well as fat shouldn't really come as a surprise.

Lobby your government for mandatory traffic light food labelling. It makes all this stuff straightforward for the consumer.


The problem with the sugar is that it is added in bulk to many of the low fat products presumably to give the product some bulk and it is cheap. I think in America it is quite often derived from corn sugar because it is cheap due to subsidies.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Marketing and advertising analytics expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Columbia. See my full bio.

Spring 2015 Courses (New York)

Jan 26: Business Analytics & Data Visualization (14 weeks) Info

Feb 23: Statistics for Management (10 weeks) Info

Mar 28: Careers in Business Analytics & Data Science (one-day seminar) Register

Apr 7: The Art of Data Visualization Workshop (6 weeks) Register

Next Events

Sep: 28 Data Visualization New York Meetup, New York, NY

Oct: 5 Andrew Gelman’s Statistical Communications class, Columbia University

Oct: 13 AQR ProSeminar, NYU Sociology

Oct: 22 Leading Business Change Through Analytics, Columbia Business School

Oct: 30 Ray Vella’s Designing Infographics class, NYU

Past Events

See here

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee


  • only in Big Data