Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | brians's commentslogin

The US FDA requires that schools not serve whole milk or any products containing normal and natural saturated fats, and instead serve “low fat” versions which literally remove the fats and replace them with sugar.

You say nobody is doing this, but all the subsidized meals for my kids do this.


Skim/lowfat milk just... takes the cream out.

The same rule changes tightened the rules on added sugar.


Taking the cream out is (by some diet theories) bad. The fat in whole milk slows down the absorption of lactose, leading to a slower rise in blood glucose compared to skim milk. Whole milk is more satiating as well, because of the fat.

If you are trying to have some reasonable balance of fat, protein, and carbs in your diet, pushing kids from whole to skim milk is going to move the diet towards consuming more sugar/carbs, even if you have a seperate rule trying to tighten sugar consumption.


None of that makes "remove the fats and replace them with sugar" in the post upthread accurate.

When you take a high satiety, high fat item, and replace it with a non-fat, low satiety item, you are in effect replacing fat with sugar, because you will eat/drink more of it to get same number of calories, and same amount of fullness.

Milk is not high satiety, come on now.

Drink a glass of whole milk, then drink a cup of skim milk and tell me there is no difference. Try the same with full fat yogurt and non-fat yogurt. Big difference in satiety, but more importantly blood sugar response. Roughly the same amount of fat in a glass of whole milk as 1/4 pound burger.

>Big difference in satiety, but more importantly blood sugar response.

There is a negligible difference in glycemic index / glycemic load between the variations of M.F. milk products. Some analysis has skim milk as having a lower GI.

Unflavoured Milk is not relevant to the GI conversation.


>Drink a glass of whole milk, then drink a cup of skim milk and tell me there is no difference

Ok, there's no different.

Beyond that, Minor differents in glycemic load are irrelevant if you're consuming milk with a meal, like the kids in school are doing.


I don't think anyone ( at least around me ) is drinking milk based drink twice as much just because they feel like they get less energy per drink from skimmed milk.

You are making an argument that people do so, do you have any evidence for this ?


Skim milk is not "low fat". It is fat free. In the US milk labeled as low fat is 1% or 2% milk fat (usually 2%). Whole milk is around 4%. Skim milk rounds to 0%.

2% milk is a pretty good balance.


> Skim milk is not "low fat"

Read the slash as “or”, not “also known as”.


In my country the lowest fat milk has added lactose.

It did twenty years ago, when I noticed, I have not bought it since


Is it added deliberately or just concentrated as a side-effect? Say fat comprised, let me guess, 5% of whole milk volume. If you take away this 5% v/v component, now everything else in one liter of skim milk is 5% concentrated by comparison, unless they add water.

Listed as an ingredient

For the milk you don't add sugar directly, but you end up adding more carbs to the rest of the meal when you take out nothing but fat from the milk.

Whole milk is 4% milkfat, to skim's 0%. We're not talking much here.

The fat is about half the calories. Removing all the fat reduces the calories in milk, but now it's 60% sugar calories instead of 33%. It's much.

That's like saying a dollar bill is worth more if I give the rest of my money away.

It's saying it's you give all your change away and then replace it with new money then you increase your bill value.

The meal does not get smaller. The meal has a calorie target, and the milkfat gets replaced with new food. And almost never will that new food be a chunk of lard, so it will increase the carb ratio.


>which literally remove the fats and replace them with sugar.

This is not accurate.

No they didn't "replace" the fats with sugar. There is a chocolate milk option, just as there was before, but all options need to be 1% or low M.F., which nutrition and medical science overwhelmingly supports.

Is chocolate milk not ideal? Of course. We all know that. They shouldn't serve it either.


A major difference is when we have to read and understand it because of a bug. Perhaps the LLM can help us find it! But abstraction provides a mental scaffold


I feel like "abstraction" is overloaded in many conversations.

Personally I love abstraction when it means "generalize these routines to a simple and elegant version". Even if it's harder to understand than a single instance it is worth the investment and gives far better understanding of the code and what it's doing.

But there's also abstraction meaning to make less understandable or more complex and I think LLMs operate this way. It takes a long time to understand code. Not because any single line of code is harder to understand but because they need to be understood in context.

I think part of this is in people misunderstanding elegance. It doesn't mean aesthetically pleasing, but to do something in a simple and efficient way. Yes, write it rough the first round but we should also strive for elegance. It more seems like we are just trying to get the first rough draft and move onto the next thing.


No. You can always take the MIT-licensed source. And GnuPG got used through a CLI “API” anyway.


Having something that read everything I read and could talk with me about it, help remember things and synthesize? That’s awesome. Follow links and check references.


This use case feels better served by a dedicated utility with a specialized UI rather than shoehorned into a browser. It'd fit the macOS services model (which adds items to context and application menus, e.g. "Research this…" when right-clicking a link or text selection) and could optionally also be summoned by the system app launcher (like Spotlight).


Having run an EV issuing practice… they were required to contact you at a D&B listed number or address.


…all of them. Which is why the scene in Ralph Breaks the Internet works. And why some of the Shrek jokes work.


And now every kid in Massachusetts gets free lunch—funded through the millionaire’s tax. Unfortunately, the food is in general pretty gross. It has to conform to Federal guidelines, which means low fat, low sodium, high sugar to hit calorie targets.


The permitted number of rat parts per pound of breakfast cereal is not zero.


Rat parts are in RFK Jr's food pyramid for America.


There are. But there are many more such bugs in DirectX on Windows, and it’s a much bigger target. If a national intelligence organization wants to burn a Proton zero-day on my Steam Deck, cool!


We have different eyes and different purposes, I think.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: