Same with skim milk, which has always been used to fatten pigs. But some prefer it today thinking less fat and cholesterol is healthier and would make them lose weight over whole milk. If only the most complex system in the universe (the human body) was that simple! People and, unfortunately, scientists completely ignored the complexity of hormones, gene expressions, and many other factors when suggesting "healthier" alternatives!
False. Fructose != skim milk. Less fat and less calories in skim milk can cause weight loss.
The claim that skim milk was fed to pigs because it has some magical fattening properties is just another urban myth. Skim milk was fed to pigs because it was free/cheap and nutritional.
When did I ever say that skim milk and fructose are the same thing?! Both whole and nonfat milk contain the same quantity of lactose and galactose. By the way, galactose is equally bad if not worse than fructose and lactose converts to galactose in your digestive tract, so, your misreading is partially correct. Unfortunately for me, galactose is present in yogurt as well.
Anyway, they fed pigs skim milk because no human wanted it, and when you take out the fat for cream and butter than junk was suitable only for the swine. Your articles are no scientific or historical proof. Without the fat in milk, the calcium in skim milk ends up in your arteries, not your bones. So, fattening or not, skim milk is not a healthier alternative from many aspects.
The funniest thing is that skim, and whole milk in America have the same price! So, the fat is removed to sell it separately and at a high price, and, yet, both types of milk are sold at the same price because there are stupid enough people to consider it "better."
I have organic raw grass-fed whole milk, and my kids have had it for over 5 years with no issues whatsoever. Kudos to Organic Pastures [0] to keep providing a high-quality product with consistency during this time!
