Why Skim Milk Isn’t as Healthy as You May Think
February 22nd, 2010
We’ve been told for years that skim milk and low fat milk are healthier choices than whole milk, but is this really the case? While this advice is mostly based on avoiding saturated fat, there are other important factors to consider as well.
Milk is the primary source of nutrition for young mammals before they’re able to eat and digest other types of food. It’s an excellent source of protein, vitamins, and minerals, all of which are critical to proper development. This applies to the fat content of milk as well. When the fat is removed, so is a portion of its nutritional quality and its ability to support healthy development. The recommendation to avoid milk fat is not only based on questionable science, but is also influenced by the profit based motives of the dairy industry.
Could Nature Be This Inconsistent?
Despite the common misconceptions about heart disease, the saturated fat and cholesterol in milk have important benefits. Although we’re the only mammals that consume milk as adults and also from other species, it’s obvious that milk provides the optimal mix of nutrients for human development and is the result of millions of years of development.
Heart disease is a leading cause of death worldwide, and despite a lack of supporting evidence that can withstand unbiased scrutiny, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol have taken much of the blame. It’s highly unlikely that the very same nutrients that are so critical to human development can be so deadly later in life. In fact, research including the work of Dr. Weston A. Price has shown the opposite to be true. His work, completed in the 1930s, describes the health of a number of isolated cultures that consume significant amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol from a variety of traditional and natural sources including cow’s milk. He consistently found that these people enjoy immunity to many of today’s most common diseases including heart disease.
There’s clearly a significant inconsistency between conventional dietary beliefs and the evidence provided to us by nature. Which is more trustworthy?
A Closer Look at Fat
The many important benefits of saturated fat include stable cell membranes and healthy brain, lung, and skin function. It can also boost immunity and is also an important source of energy and fat soluble vitamins. Another advantageous characteristic of saturated fat is that it’s very stable.1
To decrease the production cost of processed foods and increase their shelf life, the food industry uses a process called hydrogenation to turn oils containing unstable polyunsaturated fats into a substance that is more stable and more similar to saturated fat. However, the unstable polyunsaturated fatty acids in the oil are easily oxidized during this process which results in free radicals that may cause cellular damage and increase the risk of heart disease and other major health problems.8-15 In addition, the substance resulting from hydrogenation, commonly referred to as trans fat, is similar enough in structure to saturated fat to be used by the body, but different enough to cause significant problems.2 Although natural saturated fat has been labeled as the dietary villain, trans fat is a much more likely cause of heart disease as well as many other problems.
According to conventional wisdom, the risk of heart disease is reduced by choosing skim or low fat milk instead of whole milk and using polyunsaturated vegetable oils instead of saturated fat. However, more and more evidence is indicating that this belief is not only wrong, but completely backwards.23-35
The Ironic Risks of Drinking Low Fat Milk
It’s standard practice for dairy producers to improve the protein content of skim milk and low fat milk by adding dried milk powder to it. This dried milk is produced by forcing skim milk through tiny holes at high temperatures and pressures which damages its nutrients. This also causes the milk’s cholesterol to become oxidized which is a legitimate risk for heart disease.2-4,16-22 Ironically, the milk’s natural and nutritious saturated fat is removed because it’s supposedly unhealthy, but then a more likely promoter of heart disease is added. Although the amount of oxidized cholesterol in skim milk and reduced fat milk may be small, there’s really not much point in taking the risk.
Another potential problem with consuming skim milk or low fat milk is vitamin A deficiency. Because vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin, its concentration in milk is reduced through the removal of fat. As a result, when skim milk or low fat milk is consumed and digested, the vitamin A needed for the assimilation of its protein is drawn from the liver. This can deplete the body’s reserve of vitamin A, and in turn, increase the risk of autoimmune disease and cancer.5
The Politics of Low Fat Milk
We’re consistently told by the USDA and dietitians that skim milk and low fat milk are the healthiest choices, and probably not by coincidence, this is exactly what the dairy industry wants us to believe. This is because the cream that’s extracted from whole milk to reduce its fat content can be used for other dairy products and therefore generate more profit from the same quantity of milk.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the dairy industry donated nearly $5 million to political campaigns6 and spent nearly another $5 million on lobbying7. Based on this, the dairy industry is clearly interested in keeping politicians on their side, and their contributions are very likely to be a significant factor behind the mainstream belief that it’s healthier to drink skim milk and low fat milk.
Homogenization is Another Cause for Concern
Homogenization changes the nutritional quality of milk by altering the structure of its fat molecules. During homogenization, milk is forced at high pressure and temperature through tiny holes to break its fat molecules into smaller globules. This results in fat molecules with a much higher than normal membrane concentration of casein and whey proteins which has the potential to increase their allergenic properties. In addition, beneficial components have been found in the membrane of the fat molecules in milk that help suppress pathogenic organisms and protect against multiple sclerosis, Alzehimer’s disease, depression, and stress, but homogenization eliminates these benefits.5
Most of the milk available in grocery stores is both pasteurized and homogenized. Even though pasteurization reduces the quality of milk and promotes the use of poor dairy farming practices, it at least serves an arguably important purpose. It destroys many of the pathogens that can contaminate milk and cause infection. In contrast, the only benefit of homogenization is that it prevents the cream in milk from separating and rising to the top by keeping its fat molecules evenly dispersed. This is nothing more than a matter of convenience and aesthetics, neither of which justify the alteration of a food’s nutrients.
More About Milk
For more information about the history, politics, and health benefits of milk, including the controversies surrounding pasteurization, I highly recommend reading The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid ND. For more information on the chemistry and health benefits of fat, I recommend reading Know Your Fats by Mary Enig PhD.
Another important issue to consider is the potentially dangerous A1 beta casein that exists in the milk produced by certain breeds of cattle. You can find more information on the risks associated with A1 beta casein in Devil in the Milk by Keith Woodford.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
I like that you’ve started to add reference links like Dr. Briffa so when readers want more info, the original articles are easy to access. Nice!! Can’t argue with science! (well, you can, but we all know how well that works!)
Hi Andrea, I’m glad you like it! I’ve been planning to do it for a while but it took some time to figure out how to incorporate it into the design of the site the way I wanted to. I didn’t want a long list of references (like with the A1 beta casein article) to clutter the page right at the end of the article.
It’s OK to argue with science! You should just do it with better science, that’s the trick… heheh
It’s a natural part of science that happens the moment you’re reading this!
Thanks so much for this article! I am sending it to all the people who give me twisted and skeptical faces when I tell them NOT to buy non fat items. I always try to explain, but I seem not to be able to articulate all the details. This should do it.
I’d love to show this to all the doctors who hand out menus of low fat items if you have high cholestrol. They already think I’m a troublemaker and this will be one more nail in the coffin..lol!
Hi Sharon, I’m glad you like the article! In some ways, being a troublemaker is a good thing.
It’s difficult to not be considered one when challenging dogmatic beliefs.
Wow! I had no idea. This is great information, and something I’ve never read before. I’ve been drinking organic milk for a long time, but I didn’t know that skim milk had so many issues associate with it. Is this true for 2% milk as well? Maybe I should just buy a cow!
Hi Barrie,
Yes, this applies to 2% milk as well. In regard to organic milk, keep in mind that most of it is usually ultrapasteurized which destroys even more of its nutrients than regular pasteurization. In addition, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding the quality of some brands of organic milk, particularly those produced by Aurora Organic and Horizon Organic. These producers have really pushed (and in some cases exceeded) the limits of what qualifies as organic.
I don’t blame you for thinking that you should just buy a cow. Although, finding a good local dairy farmer can be just as good. Here’s a list of dairy farmers from the Weston A Price Foundation that produce and sell raw milk. Be sure to ask about quality control and if their cattle produce A1 beta casein.
Hello Vin, nice article. It’s amazing to see how much of conventional food wisdom is getting turned on it’s head. I remember many years ago when I learned that margarine (which my mom fed us loads of the whole time we were growing up) was much more dangerous than butter. It pissed me off. Since then it seems a non-stop parade of studies showing that food in it’s natural form is nearly always better.
Thanks, Stephen!
I don’t know if it’s me being more aware of this information now or that it’s becoming more mainstream, but either way, I think it’s great and hope it continues to gain momentum!
I feel more like a troublemaker in my family too when I try challenge my family’s beliefs. But I say to myself it’s natural because a good strategy hasto be planned to knock the old beliefs.
Hi ægil,
Every family needs a troublemaker to look after them.
Most people are quick to ridicule anything that doesn’t agree with mainstream belief. It’s just the way it is and those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to open our minds beyond the mainstream have to do our best to deal with it. Unfortunately, it’s usually a bit tougher with family, but definitely worth the effort.
Now this is an excellent article. A shame that this low-fat hysteria is still rampant.
There are signs of hope, though …
Sorry but I’ll take my skim milk over milk that’s 50% fat any day, How about you list all the terrible things fat causes the body? It’s a double edged sword but since I’m cutting; I’ll take skim milk to reduce my intake of fat.
Also to ever say you can understand something as nebulous as health when it comes to the human body is nuts. Theirs way too many variables including how everybody reacts differently to certain foods.
Take this for example people still argue over milk if it’s even good for you, and hell even orange juice. Hell people argue that were drinking to little water then someone comes out with some numbers and says we’re drinking too much water. Take those numbers with a grain of salt. Get back to the basics.
Hi JM,
There’s no need to apologize for exercising your right to choose what you eat. I disagree with your reasoning, but it’s still your body and your choice.
Anything consumed in excessive amounts has the potential to cause a problem, even vitamins and antioxidants. However, very few people truly have the problem of consuming too much fat from natural whole foods, and as such, I’m not too sure what you’d expect me to include in a list of “terrible things” that fat does. It’s actually easier to list the terrible things that could happen when fat is lacking in the diet which includes impairment of brain and nervous system function, altered moods, deficiencies in fat soluble vitamins, compromised cell membrane function, fatigue, impaired immunity, and the list goes on.
In regard to “cutting” being your motivation to avoid fat, perhaps you’d find it interesting that several varieties of the ketogenic diet are used by many bodybuilders to achieve a very low body fat percentage. These diets are high in fat and protein and very low in carbohydrates. Although I don’t recommend an extreme diet like this, it shows that fat intake isn’t the primary factor in weight loss that many people believe it to be.
In regard to general wellbeing, perhaps you should consider traditional Eskimos or Native American Indians who consume significant quantities of fat on a regular basis and enjoy exceptional health. I suggest reading Nutrition and Physical Degeneration for more information on this as well as the importance of consuming natural animal fats.
I certainly agree that altered fats such as trans fat and polyunsaturated vegetable oils, especially when oxidized, are a legitimate cause for concern, but the fats that naturally exist in whole foods shouldn’t be associated with them.
I’m not sure what your point is about health being nebulous. While science certainly has a way to go in regard to understanding nutrition and human physiology, we do know enough to make educated decisions. Whether right or wrong, you’re attesting to this by choosing to drink skim milk and insinuating that fat does “terrible things.”
Yes, there are a lot of opinions regarding milk, but it’s also a staple of the modern diet. As such, addressing the complicated issues associated with milk must be done to address the basics that you say we need to get back to. Besides, my general approach to nutrition is to eat minimally processed natural whole foods including the fat that they may contain, and it doesn’t get much more basic than that!
P.S. Because orange juice is refined and pasteurized, it has a higher concentration of sugar and less nutrition than an actual orange. It also doesn’t have the fiber of the fruit to slow the absorption of the sugar. As such, there’s legitimate reason to question the healthfulness of orange juice. Sure, you could do worse by drinking a can of soda, but you could also do much better by having a whole piece of fruit.
I really like making my own kefir, and this is something that’s been on my mind lately.
It’s convenient, and also a cheap source of food, along with homemade sourdough — milk and flour aren’t very expensive, and by preparing them by making them into kefir and sourdough, they’re much easier to digest and are, as far as I understand, much healthier than they would be otherwise (lactose/phytic acid/starches/gluten broken down, etc.). I can repeat all the science I’ve read about it, but in reality, I’m getting a lot less gas and am not feeling sluggish while eating these products, as I did when I was eating them in the commercial form that isn’t effectively pre-digested, and since my own body is telling me it’s doing better with these foods, I’m listening to that.
Of course, even if kefir is healthier than regular milk, for example, it doesn’t mean that it can’t do any harm. Commercial milk has many problems and I’m aware of those — I think kefir is the remedy for pasteurization, in that it re-introduces the enzymes necessary to break down milk, and makes it much easier to digest, but as for homogenization? I’m pretty sure that kefir breaks down the fat and cholesterol (you can check out “Dom’s Kefir” website to read more about this — I refer to that page often to refresh my memory on kefir, just as a little side note there XD)…but yeah, I don’t know about homogenization. The whole xanthine oxidase thing doesn’t sit well with me.
Pasteurized goat milk kefir should theoretically be the best option, since it’s naturally homogenized and the kefir would provide beneficial bacteria and yeasts to break down the milk for you. I think that would be the best alternative.
However, there’s only one place I can find pasteurized goat milk around here (I’d rather avoid the UHT goat milk because of the greater denaturing of the milk), and it’s $7.69 a half gallon. There’s no way I can afford to drink that on any kind of regular basis, and the same goes for raw milk.
So here’s my solution: make kefir with store-bought skim milk, preferably a brand that says it’s hormone-free, and then add coconut milk to that before you drink it. You can also make a mixed kefir by culturing the skim milk as well as the coconut milk, but I find that culturing both together makes the process go a little too fast because of the lowered milk content.
I’m not sure how well this would work, but I don’t see why coconut milk wouldn’t help with the absorption of the fat-soluble vitamins. Maybe the medium chain fatty acids don’t work like the long-chain fatty acids in relation to digestion and assimilation there, but I don’t have a degree in nutrition and I don’t really understand how the body works with these things — but the coconut milk fat seems like it’d be better to me than the homogenized milk fat.
Basically, I think it would be a lot better if we could at least have the option of buying regular grade A pasteurized goat milk, or pasteurized and non-homogenized cow milk. Same with raw honey — filtering and processing that is purely a cosmetic matter, and if it were more commercially available and became a lot cheaper, I think that would be great.
Food is getting so processed and manipulated these days, it’s like you have to do months of detective work just to make sure that what you’re eating isn’t going to hurt you in the long run. I think that’s really sad, and it’s already difficult for so many people to even pay for food in the first place — on top of that, you think you’re eating something that’s good for you and you start to feel sick, and don’t make the connection because you’re so used to hearing “this is loaded with calcium and vitamin A and vitamin D” and all that stuff. The problem isn’t completely that people don’t care about being healthy; it’s also that a lot of people don’t care about other people being healthy, and the pushing of modern processed and denatured foods that are blatantly bad for our health demonstrates that.
Humans are adaptive, though, and I’m sure somewhere down the road we can really get to using science and improvisation/creativity to our advantage to come out on top again. We already know that there’re problems with pasteurized and homogenized milk, but I think we’ll eventually figure out a way to make these things work to our advantage. After all, xanthine oxidase might not be good liposomally speaking, but look at liposomal sodium ascorbate you can make yourself with an ultrasonic cleaner — homogenization there is very useful, and I’ve even read studies comparing the efficacy of that to intravenous vitamin C. I think it would be equally foolish to ignore the advantages that science has to offer, and technology has definitely improved life in many ways. It’s worsened life in many ways, but there’s the double-edged sword — I think the key to this whole nutrition thing will be a balancing act, and combining tradition and science in order to make new traditions and keep humanity on the track to progress. Look at food dehydrators and juicers and things like that — ‘raw foodists’ will use these things that were never available in older times, and they aren’t traditional at all, but they certainly help.
Back to the main topic: I for one just want some answers on basic things like milk. The xanthine oxidase thing hasn’t been completely proven, to my knowledge, and I think that’s a problem — can we get some studies that definitely prove whether or not it causes arterial scarring/calcification? If they know that liposomal vitamin C is absorbed that directly, shouldn’t they be able to definitely tell what the story is with xanthine oxidase, which they’re saying theoretically works in the same way?
And if we get straight answers on that, why isn’t non-homogenized milk available? That’s not a safety issue; and maybe people would want to buy non-homogenized milk and the demand would greatly go up for that, if they publicized studies on xanthine oxidase? I’m currently hoping it isn’t as awful for you as it’s been theorized to be, but I’d rather have someone prove/disprove that it’s “rocket-fuel for cancer” and then take it from there. It’s frustrating that it’s so hard to get any clear answers on anything these days. Are you lying to me or not? That’s all I want to know — I don’t care about the ethics of people lying to each other, I just want people to be healthy. That’s all that matters; and maybe all this stuff is being perpetuated by people lying to one another because they’re afraid of what’ll happen to them (imagine the response to an article on xanthine oxidase if it were widely publicized after definitive clinical studies, given that someone eventually carried them out). I don’t even know what the stuff I’m eating might be doing to my body, and nobody really seems to care enough to research it and tell me and the other millions of people in the same position that I’m in. There’re too many lies and too much confusion in this world, seriously.
Well, I’m ranting now (I do that a lot), so I’ll stop here. But thank you for sharing this…my brain needed some morning exercise XD Shook the bugs out! I guess I’ll go have my potentially cancer-causing kefir made from commercial homogenized skim milk now (why does it say “homogenized” on skim milk? It has no fat….????)
-_- *sigh* someday we’ll have answers. Humans are adaptive — I’m convinced we’ll come out on top again, even if it takes some odd hundred years. Optimism is the best thing for our health, and it’s free too
So maybe all this isn’t so bad after all.
I said I was going to stop there. But don’t get mad at me, it was the red dye in that Kool-Aid I had that’s making me so hyperactive!!!!
Thanks again for sharing 
Hi Matt, thanks for your comment!
I think it’s great that you enjoy making your own kefir, and I think it’s an excellent and natural source of probiotics. However, I’m not so sure about it compensating for the potentially detrimental effects that pasteurization and homogenization have on milk. I think the only true way to avoid these effects is to use raw milk, and that of course is a decision that you must make for yourself.
Personally, although I prefer to avoid both, I’d be more concerned about the detrimental effects of pasteurization than homogenization. In regard to skim milk, it’s important to consider that it’s often supplemented with milk powder which tends to contain small amounts of oxidized cholesterol. In effect, you’re trading one problem for another.
Since fat soluble vitamins are stored within fat, those that naturally exist in whole milk are removed during the production of skim milk. While they may be replaced through enrichment, the vitamins used are likely to be synthetic and of lesser quality than the original vitamins that existed in their natural and whole food form. Although the addition of fat from other sources such as coconut milk might facilitate their absorption, it’s still important to consider the difference in quality.
i’ve been reading a lot of bad things about milk lately. what do you recommend drinking? is soy milk all it’s cracked up to be? how about almond milk?
Hi Shanna,
Yes, there are certainly a lot of things to consider when choosing whether or not to drink milk. I don’t recommend soy milk, and if you’re considering it, I suggest reading The Whole Soy Story by Kaayla Daniel first. Almond milk and coconut milk are suitable alternatives, but even these come with considerations. Almond milk can potentially be high in phytates and enzyme inhibitors, and coconut milk is typically canned. Although most people don’t want to hear this, I think filtered water is by far the best thing to drink, especially since many people don’t drink enough of it and are chronically dehydrated.
The politics of milk: I only drink the cream or use butter and cheese and have absolutely no use for the skimmed part. Cream does not bother me but even if I use half and half my stomach will tell me to not do that again.
Hi Toni,
Based on the fact that butter, cream, and cheese tend to contain much less lactose, it sounds like you might be lactose intolerant. Although you might be able to tolerate milk with the use of lactase (the enzyme that digests lactose) or milk with the lactose already broken down (such as Lactaid), you’re probably better off not drinking milk anyway, especially if it’s conventionally produced and pasteurized.
These claims seem to be spreading throughout the internet like a disease. You point to a lot of people talking about things, but are there any studies or real evidence (I looked on pubmed and found nothing) supporting your claims? I understand the biochemistry behind what people are attempting to explain, but no one can explain that they are actually getting their information from someone other than another so-called “health expert” from the internet. I know that there really is evidence (not just a claim of it so I can make my point) that high intake of saturated fats and cholesterol (from animals… including cows), is correlated with an increased risk of heart disease, and that these fats increase cholesterol. I haven’t found any studies showing that skim milk increases cholesterol more than raw whole milk. You also failed to mention the risks of bacterial infection that accompany unpasteurized milk. You ironically made the statement “Although the amount of oxidized cholesterol in skim milk and reduced fat milk may be small, there’s really not much point in taking the risk.” You simply don’t know what this risk is, and you’re right, there is a very small amount of this oxidized cholesterol. You’re going to say that it’s actually bad for you because of unknown risks, even though there is strong evidence to support that high saturated fat intake is correlated to heart disease. If you are going to try to argue against well-established research, then the burden of proof is yours, and you’d better have some pretty good evidence– not just “it might not be worth the risk,” and “you might get a vitamin A deficiency.” Saying that removing the fat soluble vitamin A is risking a vitamin A deficiency? … Vitamin A is found in so many vegetables (carrots, yams, pumpkin, pretty much anything orange, as well as fish and things like that). If you eat a balanced diet, this deficiency is extremely unlikely.
If there is a problem with oxidized cholesterol in skim milk and if that problem outweighs the risk of increased fat, calorie, and cholesterol intake in whole milk (and the risk of infections with unpasteurized milk), I’d really like to know the evidence behind it– and that doesn’t include weak, spineless claims like “it’s unnatural” and “all the enzymes have been killed” and “you won’t get those vitamins that you need” and things like that. I’m open-minded about it, but I want to see real evidence.
Hi BJ, thanks for your comment.
This correlation is not universally accepted and there is evidence that opposes it. In fact, some research shoes an inverse relationship between saturated fat intake and heart disease as well as a lack of association between saturated fat intake or cholesterol levels on artery damage.
See references 23-35.
Based on the references above, a more pertinent question is if such an outcome would even matter. Besides, the research that I’ve seen showing that whole milk has more of a potential to increase cholesterol than skim milk shows only a small difference, and in many cases, shows a decrease in cholesterol compared to baseline levels with whole milk merely causing slightly less of a reduction. However, in some cases, skim milk decreases HDL cholesterol more so than whole milk which is not desirable and also has less of a reducing effect on triglycerides.
Steinmetz KA, Childs MT, Stimson C, Kushi LH, McGovern PG, Potter JD, Yamanaka WK. “Effect of consumption of whole milk and skim milk on blood lipid profiles in healthy men.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1994. 59:612-618.
Rossouw JE, Burger E, Van Der Vyver P, Ferreira JJ. “The effect of skim milk, yoghurt, and full cream milk on human serum lipids. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1981. 34:351-356.
I discussed this in the article I linked to about pasteurization. Yes, there is a risk of infection with raw milk, but outbreaks have also originated from pasteurized milk.
We do know what this risk is. There is plenty of evidence indicating that oxidized cholesterol is a significant risk for heart disease, and I think the evidence is much more convincing than the “strong” associations that have been made between saturated fat, serum cholesterol levels, and heart disease.
See references 16-22
Totally understandable, thank you for encouraging me to add more references to this article.