Low-fat milk, widely recommended by health experts to fight childhood obesity does not really serve its purpose and may cause more harm than good, according to two Harvard scientists.
In an article published in the viewpoint section of JAMA, David Ludwig and Walter Willett proved the popular myth of "low-fat milk helping prevent weight gain in children" wrong. They found that whole-milk is a much better option. They also analyzed the nutritional value of milk and its role in a child's growth.
The two experts claim, low-fat food doesn't satiate the baby's hunger thus increasing it all the more. In addition to that, they also found that a low-fat diet leaves a negative impact on energy levels of a child.
"People compensate or overcompensate for the lower calorie content of reduced-fat milk by eating more of other foods," they wrote.
The researchers also questioned the move of some schools that encouraged children to drink milk by distributing sugar-sweetened low-fat milk.
"The substitution of sweetened reduced-fat milk for unsweetened whole milk-which lowers saturated fat by 3 g but increases sugar by 13 g per cup-clearly undermines diet quality, especially in a population with excessive sugar consumption," they explained.
They asserted that milk is not the only source of calcium. The scientists claimed that bone fracture rates were lower in countries with lower milk consumption citing a recent study that eradicated the belief that milk consumption can protect people against fractures.
The report and recommendations contrast guidelines of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to them, children aged between two and eight should take two to three cups of milk daily. They also recommend parents to replace whole milk with a fat free or low-fat option.
