It’s $4.99 a bottle and I think that’s a half gallon. It tastes great - I prefer it to half and half / cream for the lower calories and lower carbs. I avoided trying it for a long time thinking it must be Frankenfood. I’m still not clear on how they filter out the lactose. But I’m liking it a lot. It tastes like a slightly richer whole milk.
1 Like
I’ve been using Fairlife milk for a couple a months since a friend introduced it to me. It’s more expensive than regular grocery store milk but in line with products like Horizon organic milks. It is ultra-filtered and has 1/2 the carbs of regular milk. I am buying the 2% version and it is comparable to traditional 2% milk, maybe a bit richer although it does not have more fat. Sometimes I mix it with vanilla almond milk when I make oatmeal. I don’t drink coffee, but assume it would work great for that. I buy it at Target since my normal grocery store does not carry it.
2 Likes
We have it here! Believe it or not, Target carries it as does Fred Meyer (at least on the north side).
But it does have artificial sweetener and is owned by Coca-Cola, so there’s that.
For what it’s worth, only the Chocolate Milk has artificial sweeteners (sucralose), although it also has sugar (so it still has half the sugar of competitors’ brands). The skim, 2%, and whole milk don’t have any sweeteners, only lactase and vitamins (A & D3). So should be comparable to other non-organic lactose-free brands (like Lactaid).
That’s actually encouraging to me. If I can find it locally (I’ll check Rosauers, since we have neither Fred or Target in my neck of the woods), I’ll check it out!
That’s good to know.
Since the subject of sugar has popped up here, I’m going to do my standard plug: Gary Taubes’s new book, The Case Against Sugar, ought to be required reading for people (like us) who care deeply about nutrition. IMOP, some sharp lawyer needs to do to the sugar industry what tobacco had done to it a decade or two ago.
< /plug>
So, I haven’t done as much reading in this area, and I’m taking the lazy man’s way out, i.e., asking someone else for a summary.
Does Taubes’ work show that all sugar consumption (of any molecule) is inherently harmful, or is it one of those “in moderation” things. So many plant foods have natural sugars that I find it hard to imagine eating no sugars at all. And since most other digestible carbohydrates are converted directly into sugars in the body, it also seems like the “no sugar” thing would end up meaning “no carbohydrates.”
Is that an extreme characterization of his position, or is he suggesting “low carb for all people?”
Book is still sitting on my pile, virtually unread… Should get to it…
@David49, I’ll, let @David_dns give a better answer, but I don’t think Gary Taubes is talking about all carbohydrates at all. He is talking about sugar, as in processed sugar/cane sugar. And he isn’t necessarily promoting – The book reads (what I have read of it) as a text book or extended research paper. Lots of facts/studies, etc. And I don’t think it’s specific to PWD, either – just trying to answer the question about whether sugar is bad/good for consumption in general.
1 Like
As Thas says, the book is thoroughly researched, extensively footnoted and a bit technical in spots, so this is a soundbyte characterization of a 300 page treatise. Here’s the precis:
-
It’s about sugar specifically, not carbohydrates in general
-
The tobacco industry in its present form and size could not exist without the sugar industry (that’s a deliberate teaser on my part, you’ll have to read the book to see why it’s so)
-
All sugars are NOT created equal; some forms are much worse for you than others
-
There appears to be a threshold of consumption beyond which bad things happen; the exact amount is not known because the definitive research to identify it has never been done, but in any case we passed it a long long time ago
-
We’ve been overconsuming for enough generations that the harmful effects may actually be crossing generations, similarly to the way that crack addiction can
-
Many of these tantalizing and important questions simply can’t be answered with confidence because the definitive research needs to be done, and hasn’t been
1 Like
Alright, that makes a certain amount of sense. I presume he’s talking about Fructose-Sucrose blends being what is so damaging (those are both associated with inflammatory responses as well as metabolic issues). The idea of having “natural limits” also makes sense to me as a biologist. Many chemicals are fine in moderation, but cause issues when consumption crosses certain thresholds. This is, to me, the most sensible way to think about all forms of diabetes, by the way: we have a limited and progressive dysfunction in being able to process consumed carbohydrates and rid ourselves of the excess. There are different mechanisms for that dysfunction, but the results are largely the same: eat too many carbs without insulin (or one of the new enzyme inhibitors) to help process or eliminate the excess, BG rises beyond what the body can deal with.
I suspect that both gut flora and genetics play a role in what “the limit” is for sugar consumption, so I’m not sure any amount of research will establish a definitive line. But it is likely that different individuals and different populations have different abilities to process sugars (and carbs in general). This is an area of research I think is ripe for exploration, if we have any budding scientists out here who are looking for a lifetime of thankless and poorly remunerated work 
As is likely the reverse: overconsumption, or perhaps even ANY consumption, may impact the gut flora and their impact on regulation. And both may also impact genetic triggers.
Not an easy puzzle, but WE all know that, already!
He says that fructose is metabolized differently than other sugars, i.e., rather than being converted to glucose or glycogen, the liver converts it directly to fat. So, the more fructose, the higher incidence of fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, etc. While HFCS is an obvious villain, ordinary table sugar is actually pretty bad too. Commercial HFCS is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose, whereas ordinary table sugar is about 50/50. Different, but not all that drastically different.
If we’re talking about a precise line in the sand, then almost certainly not. Even the reference ranges your lab uses to evaluate blood components are a little “soft”; we do the best we can. As you say, individuals vary and other factors play a role. But it certainly should be possible to determine useful ranges; stay below this range and you’re mostly safe; go much above it and you’re into redline territory.
Oh, and one other theme I forgot to mention: he cites chapter and verse to illustrate how, deliberately and with premeditation, the industry has worked to downplay or flatly deny that there are any real dangers at all—very much as big tobacco used to do.
I literally drink heavy organic cream for a snack! I buy it at Costco by the 1/2 gallon? I confess to snacking on butter too! 
Taubes can heard on a few YouTube videos (interviews).
He was also interviewed at least once here on TuD. The video should be in the archive.
Here it is, it was very good.
I read somewhere about a guy calling coffee with cream “dirty coffee”. Haha! I use cream. I drink whole milk (maybe 4 or 5 ounces) to correct. It works as effectively as Smarties (my preferred source of sugar when low). Can’t use it in coffee or tea unless I bolus. Sometimes caffeine and cream raises my BS too. I don’t always see it a freebie (even though Dr. Bernstein swears it doesn’t raise your levels. It raises mine.)
I use a low-fat milk in order to prevent from cholesterol.
Good ingredients for making coffee good. This increase the taste and flavor of course.