    
Anonymous
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 06:16 am: | 
|
Yes, you're right. But how is that explained? Is it just because the lower fat foods have a higher amount of sugars? If that's true, how do you explain the milk example? Shouldn't milk be the same, except for the removed fat from the low-fat products? Here's another example... a 100 g tin of tuna in springwater has 0.9 g fat, and 511 kj. A 100 g tin of salmon has 7.4 g fat, and 550 jK. So practically the same calories, and again my original question - is the tuna still "better" to eat, just because it has lower fat? Are "fat" calories worse for a weight-watcher than "carbohydrate" calories? |
Weight Loss Questions