Editorial-Milk

Skim Milk: 2% of the Whole Issue

By Gwen Schultz

Skim, 2 percent, or whole?

Photo from Google 

My past four months at National Sports Academy have been absolutely delightful. However, there has been one glaring exception: there is no skim milk in the kitchen.

Being a cereal lover/addict and a generally picky eater, one can understand why I might feel strongly about this shortfall in NSA’s kitchen.

But it is not just me who feels this way. Many students around the school have mentioned a preference for skim milk over 2 percent or whole, and a lot of us keep a carton of skim milk in our dorm rooms—which we buy on a weekly basis.

The reason that having options in the milk machine is necessary is that tastes for milk vary significantly. Skim milk drinkers such as myself are vehemently opposed to going anywhere near whole milk, while many whole milk drinkers find skim milk revolting.

Even if some of us don’t care whether our milk has the consistency of water or that hearty, straight-from-the-cow taste, I argue that skim milk would actually be beneficial for the NSA community.

At this school, student-athletes try to attain peak performance. Part of staying in shape is maintaining a healthy weight and fueling our bodies well for training and competition.

From a simple calorie-counting point of view, the nutrition facts speak for themselves. For one cup of milk, skim milk has 80 calories and no fat, 2 percent has 120 calories and five grams of fat, while whole milk has 150 calories and eight grams of fat.

Since the fat content of 2 percent and whole milk is more than half saturated fat—and there is no difference in the amount of protein—there is no nutritional justification for drinking them.

The 40 calories that make up the difference between skim milk and 2 percent “reduced fat” milk are no small matter. Drinking skim milk instead of 2 percent for five cups of milk per week could save 800 calories per month—an amount that no one who spends time on cardio machines would find negligible.

Regardless of the nutritional facts, it is reasonable for the kitchen to at least provide options. With the milk machine the way it is now, there are two open spots for the three milk options (I would not condone the removal of the chocolate milk option, which holds the third spot in the milk machine).

Offering skim milk as an option would not be any serious stress on NSA’s budget. Skim milk costs the same—if not less—than the other milk options.

At the very least, the milk options could rotate so that at least sometimes skim milk drinkers can enjoy watery milk without having to spend their own pocket money.

We students at NSA pay a good amount of money to make sure we get everything we need to perform, and a simple demand such as asking for a healthier option from the kitchen really should be met. It’s not like we’re asking for deep-fried Oreos at snack time.

I admit that I am biased because I have a strong preference for skim milk, but I find it unusual that skim is not an option. Being a member of the Healthy Choices Council, I have taken part in several conversations to urge the kitchen to buy skim milk, and it seems weird that the kitchen still does not comply.

In the end, NSA, it would be dumb for me to hate you because of the lack of skim milk in the kitchen, but you have to understand that skim milk is a part of my life that I cannot change. After all, it is the simple things in life that matter the most.